1951-10-19

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J, G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre): I
should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister regarding a newspaper report respecting General Kurt Meyer. In so far as his incarceration is concerned, was he released or transferred under an order in council, and has there been any communication to the effect that he will now take his place in any army being formed in western Germany?
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Defence Production):: I am sorry that neither the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) nor the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) is in his place. I am sure that they could give a more detailed statement. In the meantime I can only say that Kurt Meyer is merely being transferred from one custody to another. There is no question of release. However, I will call the question to the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and endeavour to have an answer for my hon. friend on Monday.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Perhaps the minister
would say whether or not this was done under order in council, as there seems to be quite a bit of secrecy about the matter.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am told that it was done under order in council-I did not happen to be in council the day the order was passed, but I think it Was yesterday.


Mr. Fleming:: Was any request received from any other government for such order in council?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sorry, I am not in a position to answer this question. This is not a matter that is related in any way to my department, but I will endeavour to have all these questions answered on Monday by the appropriate minister.


Mr. Coldwell:: Because of the importance of the matter, will the minister say whether he is still under the control and the jurisdiction of Canada or whether his incarceration has been transferred to the jurisdiction of another country?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will call that question to the attention of the government.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last I directed a question to the Minister of Finance concerning a recent decision of the income tax appeal board to the effect that expenses of lawyers attending conventions of the Canadian Bar Association are deductible for income tax purposes. At that time I asked the minister if steps had been taken to extend the same privilege to members of trade unions and other comparable groups. The minister said that he would answer the question later.


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: I had forgotten to answer the hon. member's question. Of course it is one of law. I have not examined the decision of the income tax appeal board; but I assume the board must have decided that the lawyer in question incurred these expenses as necessary expenses in earning his income. If a member of a trade union is in the same position in deducting expenses, and if he can say that his attendance at a trade union convention was necessary, incidental to the earning of his income, then I assume that as a matter of law the court would hold the same thing. However, it is purely a question of law.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask this supplementary question: Does not the minister feel that the law should be changed so as to make sure that all these different groups are treated alike?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, I think it is strictly a question for the courts.



ANGLO-EGYPTIAN TREATY DEFENCE OF SUEZ CANAL    STATEMENT BY MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary ef State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister indicated that I would make a short statement on the developments

Inquiries of the Ministry in Egypt, and I am very glad to do so now. It was also suggested yesterday by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) that there had been some strange delay in dealing with this matter, in so far as bringing it before the House of Commons is concerned. I do not think there has been any undue delay, as the chronology of events will indicate.
On October 15, Monday of this week, the United Kingdom High Commissioner saw officials of my department and brought them up to date on the events which had transpired in Egypt over the week end. Unfortunately, on that day I was absent, in Kapuskasing, returning from there the next day at noon. Upon arrival in the House of Commons at 1.30 I found a question from an hon. member which I felt I could not deal with appropriately at that time.
Then on the next day, Wednesday, after we received further information from the United Kingdom government, the questions was discussed in cabinet. We also had an exchange of views with regard to it with Washington.
On Thursday, October 18, the views of the Canadian government in respect of this matter were transmitted to the United Kingdom government and also to the government of the United States. On that occasion- yesterday-I was in a position to make a Short statement; but in view of observations then made it was felt that possibly the very short statement I had in mind should be elaborated somewhat. That longer statement I shall make today.
I believe, if hon. members wish to understand the complete significance of what has been transpiring in Egypt, it might be desirable to give very briefly a short historical background. It must be remembered in the first instance that even when the protectorate in Egypt was terminated in 1922 and Egyptian independence was proclaimed, the questions of the Sudan and British defence interests in Egypt remained unsolved issues, and were the subject of differences between the two governments until 1935, when the invasion of Ethiopia brought war to the very borders of Egypt and led directly to the signing of the 1936 Anglo-Egyptian treaty.
This treaty, which was to run until 1956, was designed to put an end to the military occupation of Egypt, and to replace it with a permanent alliance for mutual assistance both in times of peace and war between the United Kingdom and Egypt. That treaty also authorized the maintenance of United Kingdom troops in the Suez canal zone-and I quote these words "until such time as the parties agree that the Egyptian army is in a position to ensure, by its own resources, the liberty and entire security of navigation

of the canal." That treaty, the 1936 treaty, also continued the administration of the Sudan under the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium Agreement of 1899.
During the war years-that is the years of world war II-the treaty, through the facilities in Egypt which it placed at the disposal of the allies, played a very important role in the attainment of ultimate victory over the axis powers. As the tide of war receded from Egypt, however, the popular Egyptian demand for the removal of all remaining limitations on independence was revived and led to an inconclusive reference of this matter to the United Nations security council by Egypt early in 1947.
With the return of the Wafd government to power in Egypt in 1950, it became the declared objective of Egypt to achieve the complete evacuation of United Kingdom troops from the canal zone and the unification of the Nile valley, including the Sudan, under the crown of Egypt. Rejecting a revision of the treaty with the United Kingdom, and finally rejecting more recently a place of equality in a system of collective defence for the whole Middle East area, the Egyptian government has pursued its national aims to the point reached a few days ago, when it abrogated its treaties with the United Kingdom.
It was implicit, in the recent decision taken in Ottawa a few weeks ago to invite Greece and Turkey to accede to the North Atlantic treaty, that the defence of the Middle East is vital to the successful defence of Europe and the north Atlantic area, as was clearly shown during world war II. It was for the same reason that it was also decided to establish a separate command in the Middle East which, through the peacetime co-operation of the states in the area and those states directly concerned in the defence of that area, could make adequate preparation for its successful defence in time of war.
Those states directly concerned, and which were invited to participate in the Middle East command, included Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. These proposals, which were submitted to the Egyptian government before the denunciation of the treaty, would have superseded the treaty and would have terminated the present United Kingdom regime, under which it had responsibility for the security of the canal zone. These proposals were rejected by the Egyptian government, and that rejection was followed very shortly by the action taken last week.
So far as the Canadian government is concerned, it regrets exceedingly the action taken by the Egyptian government to repudiate the Anglo-Egyptian treaty of 1936-action

all the more regrettable in view of the tact that alternative arrangements were under discussion with the Egyptian government at the time the repudiation took place.
The Secretary of State of the United States has already characterized this repudiation and, indeed, also that of the agreements of 1899, regarding the Sudan, as without validity. We agree with that view.
The situation which has developed in the Suez canal zone is highly inflammable and can become dangerous to general peace. For that reason the Canadian government joins other governments in expressing the earnest hope that every effort will be made to avoid any breach of the peace and to achieve a satisfactory arrangement for the security of the area.
The government has welcomed the assurances which we have received from the United Kingdom that, as we would naturally expect, they are doing their best and will continue to do their best to avoid incidents and violence. The Canadian government considers it of major importance for the security of the free world, indeed for the maintenance of peace itself, that no action should be taken to alter by force the present regime of responsibility of the United Kingdom for the defence of the Suez canal zone. These views have already been communicated to the United Kingdom government.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, earlier in this session I replied to inquiries in connection with an increase in the basic rate of disability pensions paid to veterans under the Pension Act by stating that the government had had the matter under consideration and that an announcement would be made on the subject at an early date.
In accordance with the recommendation of the last special committee on veterans affairs the government has given further consideration to increasing the basic rate of pensions for pensioners under the Pension Act. I now wish to inform the house that it is the intention of the government to introduce at this session legislation dealing with this matter.
Consideration has also been given to the War Veterans Allowance Act, in particular to its relationship with the new social security legislation to be introduced by my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). The government has come to the conclusion that it is advisable to have this legislation studied by a special committee on
Inquiries of the Ministry veterans affairs before submitting it to the house. Accordingly it is intended that such a committee will be set up as early as possible after the regular 1952 session opens in order to deal with the War Veterans Allowance Act. I may say that changes to the War Veterans Allowance Act subsequently enacted could be made retroactive to the first of January 1952, which is the general date for the putting into effect of the provisions of the new old age security legislation and Old Age Assistance Act.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the
members of the house will welcome the fact that the government has on further consideration decided to deal with this subject. I notice that the minister said that legislation will be introduced during the present session to deal with the matter, but he has not indicated the nature of the steps that are to be taken. It certainly would avoid unnecessary discussion on this subject if the minister would indicate that a decision has been taken to deal with this matter on the basis of an over-all increase in the basic rate which has been pressed for by hon. members for some days.


Mr. Lapoinie:: Whatever legislation is to be brought in will be made known to the leader of the opposition and other hon. members at the time. I do not think that it is necessary for me to go further into the matter. Any debate on this particular phase of the matter should take place at that time.


Major James William Coldwell: May
I ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the new social security legislation will have some effect upon war veterans allowances, why is this committee not being set up at this session so that it could study the new social security legislation?


Hugues Lapointe: For one reason, the new old age security legislation has not yet been introduced. Until that legislation is before the house it would not be in order to consider changes in any other act administered by my department. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) points out, that legislation would have to be disposed of first. I might say that in considering this question the government was of the opinion that the work performed by the parliamentary committee which sat during the last sessioh covered adequately the question of an increase in the basic rates of pension. It was thought desirable during this short session that some positive steps be taken following the sittings of the committee. I might say that the various veterans organizations have indicated to me that they share this view.

The Address-Mr. Campney


Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: I wonder if the minister could tell us at this time the proposed percentage of increase?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Wait and see.


Hugues Lapointe: That will be a question of government policy which my hon. friend will learn about in due time.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, consequent upon the statement just made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe). Is it his advice that every veteran 70 years and over presently receiving a war veterans allowance should make an immediate application for old age pension? Should they put in those applications now instead of waiting?


Hon. Paul Marlin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I am hoping that I shall have an early opportunity to introduce the new old age security legislation and I feel that that would be the proper time for my hon. friend to pose his question.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask unanimous consent to revert to motions in order that I may table a list, in English and in French, of diplomatic instruments completed in 1951.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, October 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Robert Cauchon for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. R. O. Campney (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few remarks regarding the somewhat extended comments which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) made on Monday last with respect to the Department of National Defence, with which I am associated as parliamentary assistant to the minister. Before dealing with that 1 should like to deal with two or three points


astonishing change. Strength has increased, squadron formation has accelerated, training capacity has multiplied, equipment delivery has been expedited. The old peacetime concept of a nucleus air force has completely vanished. Already the framework of the 1953 striking force is well advanced. Like the other armed forces, the R.C.A.F-swept into the world's armament race with little forewarning.
I do not know whether anything further is necessary with respect to Mr. Hornick's unchallengeable article. I guess you pay your money and take your choice.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am following
this with great interest. It might help if the hon. member would explain in what way those two statements differ. There is a vast difference between a framework and squadrons in action.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I think the difference
between those two statements is this. As I read the series of statements, which I have not quoted in full by any means, it strikes me that if the situation in the Royal Canadian Air Force was as Mr. Hornick stated it was on April 25 in the Globe and Mail-and as everybody knows it has been making steady progress since that time-then the remarks he made as late as October cannot be in accordance with the facts, which as I have stated they were not.
Coming to the question of the information that can be made available, as I say, every government must take the responsibility as to what degree of information should be given in the public interest. If we look at the statements that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has made in this house, at the many statements that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) has made in this house, in great detail, and at the white papers that have been tabled-during the last session and brought up to date recently-and the many, many hours that we spent on defence estimates, I think that hon. members will agree that this house does not lack information.
However, information must be kept up to date and I have attempted to select some figures in order to give a statement of fact which it seems to me might be helpful in bringing the situation up to date for the members of the house with regard to what is going on in the department.
During the two and a half years since April 1, 1949, the strength of the Canadian forces-including the three branches-has more than doubled. In other words, it has risen from something like 41,500 to something over 84,000. Of those 84,000, over 35,000 have joined the services since the Korean war began in June, 1950. While these

figures certainly form no basis for complacency, as many more men are needed, I believe they show, in a general way, continued and steady progress. But doubling the strength of the armed forces requires much more than just doubling the payroll. It means the reconditioning of training establishments, married quarters and other accommodation which was used in the last war. It means expanding a good deal of that accommodation, and it means the acquisition of new property and the construction of entirely new accommodation. These things take time.
In that connection it might be of interest to the members of this house if I told them that, in addition to the repair and the reconditioning of this existing accommodation, the construction of over 8,600 units of permanent married quarters at a cost of approximately $10,500 per unit has been entered upon; and of these 5,100 have been completed to date and 3,500 are in various stages of construction. As to airfields, it has meant the acquisition and expansion at considerable expense -because they are expensive; the cost runs into many millions of dollars in each case- of 20 airfields and airtraining schools to take care of the influx of troops, bringing to a total of 66 the number of airfields and aircrew schools in operation. It has meant the expansion or reopening of 12 army camps to accommodate army recruits and new formations, raising the total number now in operation to 22. In the navy it has meant the expansion of five existing shore establishments and the construction of two entirely new ones, additional to those put back into use of the existing ones, so that there is now a total of 35 naval establishments on shore.
I mention all these items-and there are many others-because it seems to me that we had to start at the beginning, and the beginning was to establish a plan. You cannot turn out trained, fighting sailors, soldiers or airmen without having sound training plans. It is not exactly a parallel analogy but it is somewhat analogous to the construction by the aluminum company in British Columbia of a plant which would cost something like half a billion dollars, most of which will have to be spent before they can turn out a block of aluminum. We have to have all these things done first, and I am giving these figures to show that they have been done or are being done very quickly.
I should like to go a little further. I should like to take the three services and put on Hansard for the benefit of hon. members a few facts with regard to them. In the last two and a half years the army has increased from approximately 19,000 to about 45,000. Out of this increase of 26,000 the
The Address-Mr. Campney 25th Canadian infantry brigade now fighting under the flag of the United Nations in Korea and its replacements have required 10,000; the 27th brigade which, subject to the approval of this house-and with regard to which the order in council was tabled yesterday seeking that-will shortly proceed to Europe, will, with its replacements require 8,000; and the remainder of these 26,000 have reinforced the ranks of the other training and administrative units required to serve the increased fighting formations and as the organizational basis for mobilization in an all-out emergency.
Here I should like to correct the leader of the opposition in another particular when he states, as he did, as reported at page 25 of Hansard:
. . . The airborne brigade is being sent out of Canada with no trained airborne brigade to take its place. If the explanation for not sending the airborne brigade was valid in the first place, what is the reason that we do not need a trained airborne brigade at this time?
In this connection, I am informed that the original mobile striking force to which the hon. leader of the opposition referred was especially trained for the territorial defence of Canada. It has not been sent, and it is not intended that it will be sent out of Canada. The facts are these: A number of trained men from this force are being sent to Korea for battle experience. These are, in turn, being replaced by battle-experienced veterans from Korea in such a way that the number of trained paratroopers in Canada shall not at any time fall below an acceptable level. This has been made possible by the fact that since the outbreak of hostilities in Korea the program has been steadily producing trained paratroopers. The arrangement now in effect in no way weakens our own defence but rather toughens it by incorporating some elements of battle-hardened troops from Korea.
May I now turn to some statistics with regard to the navy. On April 1, 1949, the navy had a total strength of approximately 8,000. Today that strength has risen to roughly 12,000. On April 1, 1949, the navy had about 15 ships in commission. Today there are in commission 28 ships, together with 28 other vessels ranging from auxiliary tankers to harbour vessels which are not commissioned ships. In addition, there are 24 other ships under construction at the present time, 7 of which are escort vessels. Furthermore, the contracts for another 7 escort vessels and 10 smaller craft have been let. A large program is already in progress looking to the rearmament and refitting of existing Royal Canadian Navy ships in strategic reserve. In this connection more than 34 frigates and minesweepers have been brought
PROVINCIAL LIBRARY, VICTORIA. B. a

The Address-Mr. Campney out of reserve and at present are being reconditioned. As you know, since June, 1950, five destroyers have been employed in Korean waters. Of these, three have been at all times on duty there.
Turning for a moment to the Royal Canadian Air Force, may I say that in 1949 there were 14,500 men in that force. Today, we have 27,500. Major projects in the earlier stages, of course, have been the reactivation of the airfields, provision of accommodation and the creation of training facilities, and all other incidentals necessary to and attendant upon the expansion of this service. On the training side, the objective is to train each year a total of 1,400 aircrew from other countries in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. We are now training men from Belgium, France, Holland, Italy and Norway as well as the United Kingdom. In addition, the desire is to train 1,900 men for Canada.
It may be of interest to the house if I tell hon. members that between 600 and 700 pilots, navigators and wireless operators, which constitute aircrew, and over 4,000 ground crew have thus far been trained in Canada by the Air Force. In addition it has trained or is training approximately 250 aircrew for NATO countries. It will be readily appreciated that a tremendous expansion in training facilities and aircraft procurement has been necessary to achieve this end, as well as the provision of adequate airfields.
But the Royal Canadian Air Force has advanced in quality as well as in quantity. This has meant the spending of a considerable amount of money for the development and production of the most advanced types of aircraft. Every member of the house will know and appreciate that that involves a long period of time and- large expenditures before returns become definitely and consecutively available.
It seems to me that the two principal objectives of the Air Force should be, and I believe they are, first to train aircrew for new squadrons to be equipped with the latest and most modern fighting equipment; secondly, to provide such modern aircraft in substantial numbers as quickly as may be possible. To provide for the training of these pilots, wireless operators and navigators, Canada has purchased Mitchells and Mustangs, as well as other types of aircraft, which, although they are not the latest types of aircraft, are particularly valuable and more economical for the operational training of fighter pilots. Against the time when new planes are available in greater quantity, they serve an extremely useful purpose.
To meet the requirement for short-range defensive fighting aircraft Canada has, as hon. members know, adopted the F-86E, which is

making a name for itself in Korea. Apart from the United States, Canada is the only country in the world producing this aircraft. They are being produced at a rate which is limited only by the supply of equipment manufactured in the United States. As regards the production of the second type of plane, the long range all-weather fighter, the CF-100, progress has been somewhat slower. I understand, but I am not sure, that further information on this particular subject may be available later in the day. As I understand it, the development stage has been passed and I think the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Howe) received the first service CF-100 with an Orenda engine a couple of days ago. It is expected that from now on deliveries will be continually increasing.
In his remarks on Monday, the leader of the opposition stated, as reported on page 25 of Hansard:
Canadians have been told that we have developed the finest anti-tank gun in the world, that we have the world's most advanced anti-submarine vessels, that we have the world's most powerful jet engine, that we have the world's best all-weather fighter.
I made a search but I was unable to find- if I am wrong I can be corrected-any record or indication, either in Hansard or in the department, of any such statement as that having been made by the minister or any official of the department. I ask you to note this, because the statement covers a wide field. By chance it did happen that in trying to find some source for this statement I perused an article by Mr. Hornick in the Toronto Globe and Mail of October 8, just a week before the leader of the opposition delivered his speech. In that article I found this quotation:
. . . the vague boasts that since the war this country has developed the world's finest anti-tank gun, the world's most advanced anti-submarine ship, the world's most powerful jet engine, the world's best all-weather fighter.
The only difference between the two statements is that the boasts had become less vague within the week which elapsed between the delivery of the speech by the leader of the opposition and the appearance of this article by Mr. Hornick in the Globe and Mail. The vagueness has gone, and it is now an unequivocal statement. Incidentally, the similarity between the statements raises a train of thought as to whether the hon. leader of the opposition finds Mr. Hornick inspiring or whether Mr. Hornick finds the leader of the opposition inspiring. Perhaps they are both inspired by some superior medium acting through two media, the press and parliament.


Mr. Sinclair:: It may be a pen name.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Well, I do not wish to indulge in any vain boasting. I think I can say in fairness and in honesty that the Department of National Defence is developing excellent equipment in all these fields. That is not peculiar to the Department of National Defence of Canada; I think it is true of all-it ought to be-government departments which are carrying on the rearming of the different countries of the world.
The department is using its utmost endeavours-and I believe with considerable success-to maintain the position of Canada, and if possible to assume leadership in many of these fields. I do not think we should boast about it, but I think we have a splendid record. If the record does become known, and it should become known, it will abundantly demonstrate that. To the extent that we succeed I think the department deserves the gratitude of Canada, and to the extent that it tries it certainly has the support of every hon. member. I know there are going to be disappointments; there have been; but in the main, from such knowledge as I have of the department, I feel we are progressing better in that direction than a good many other countries.
It was my privilege last month to attend the meeting of the North Atlantic treaty council here in Ottawa. I should like to interject here that the delegates to this treaty council ranged all the way from ranking ministers and in some cases prime ministers of the North Atlantic treaty countries. The appointments and the arrangements for this conference apparently were most impressive to all the delegates attending. Our own Department of National Defence fittingly provided a system of instantaneous translation, which was used throughout the conference, and which I think had not been used heretofore at NATO council meetings.
While the proceedings of the conference were secret, yet I think I may say that the attitude of the delegates of other countries indicated that they at least were most appreciative of the efforts that Canada is making in regard to this undertaking, and they felt that we are making a great contribution to the common cause on which all of our freedoms depend.
In these circumstances it seems to me that the Department of National Defence, under the very able and industrious leadership of the minister, ought to have the sympathetic consideration and the support of this house, and that the department should be able to rely on that and not have to feel that any person or element of people is unreasonably critical; critical if you like, but not unreason-94699-14{
The Address-Mr. Campney ably critical of the very honest effort that is being made in the face of many difficulties to meet the existing situation which grows more perilous every day. That is why I do not think, in fairness to the house or to the Department of National Defence, a statement such as the leader of the opposition made in his remarks of Monday last, as reported at page 25 of Hansard, should be made. There, after having paid his tribute to Canadians in both world wars, he said:
It is unworthy of their great achievements and their valour, to say nothing of their sacrifice, that the people of Canada should at any time be lulled into a state of complacent optimism by boastful statements unrelated to the facts.
I submit in all fairness that that statement is completely unrelated to the facts.
Lastly, in dealing with the observations of the leader of the opposition, I should like to make a brief reference to his request that the government should appoint a committee on defence expenditures.
The type of committee, if any, that this house may appoint is a matter of policy, and I do not propose to comment on it one way or the other; but I should like to observe, Mr. Speaker, that we did have a committee last session, a committee on public accounts, which, as we know, is a committee set up by this house to examine into expenditures. That committee sat last session, and in accordance with the wishes of the opposition groups, it spent the greater part of its time investigating the affairs of the Department of National Defence for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1950. Well, that was an early stage of the defence preparation. There was before that committee however over $380 million worth of defence expenditures, and I think that is about equal to the ordinary expenditures of Canada before the war. These accounts, contracts and all the details were included in 65 pages of the public accounts. I know a little bit about the committee because I happened to be a member of it. The leader of the opposition was a member of it.


James Sinclair: He never attended it.


Ralph Osborne Campney: So far as I am aware, and I was there for most of the meetings, he was not present. The committee met first on March 1, and concluded its sittings almost four months later, on June 28. During the intervening period it held 27 meetings, of which 19 meetings were entirely devoted to the examination of the activities of the Department of National Defence.
The deputy minister of that department was under continuous examination throughout twelve consecutive sittings, and other officials of the department, as well as the manager of the Canadian Commercial Corporation,

The Address-Mr. Campney were also examined. At the request of the committee the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) appeared before the committee. Altogether, over 600 pages of evidence were given, and over a hundred pages of tables and documents were produced, and filed as appendices to the proceedings, of which over 90 pages represented material prepared by the Department of National Defence.
A great deal of interesting information was obtained by the committee, and so far as I know none was improperly withheld. In fact, in its report to the house, at page 693, the committee said:
All witnesses asked for have been heard, all documents requested were produced, and no trouble was spared by Messrs. Drury, Low and Ross to satisfy committee members with detailed answers to their questions.
As matter of fact, and as perhaps a pertinent comment on the real interest of the official opposition in actually inquiring into and studying defence expenditures, it should be stated that the committee was forced to adjourn on four occasions for lack of a quorum, and in fairness I may say that the poorest record by far was that of the members of the official opposition.
Actually, on June 21 when an adjournment for lack of a quorum became necessary, it was noted that at the time of the adjournment those present consisted of 17 Liberals, 1 C.C.F., 1 Independent, and not a single Progressive Conservative. The Progressive Conservatives were evidently taking their cue from their leader, who didn't come at all.
In any event, it was a good thing to have had the committee, as it afforded an opportunity to inquire into and investigate over $380 million worth of expenditures, the methods that were followed in making these expenditures and the efficiency of the departmental officials.
It is also noteworthy that as a result of the four-month sessions of the committee, no irregularities were disclosed or found-in fact, none were alleged. No waste of public moneys was established and no economies or changes in procedure were recommended.
I think the house should be made aware of what went on in that committee and the time that was spent in the investigation. I am speaking only for myself, but it seems to me that any government must take responsibility for policy in respect to defence as in anything else, but the expenditures and the propriety of these expenditures, the honesty with which they are made, are subjects of parliamentary inquiry at any time, and were all through last session in this very house.
I have endeavoured to show that this most important matter of national defence is

important to all of us; it is important to every citizen of this country, and probably will become increasingly so. This department, with which I have the honour to be associated in a minor capacity, is, under the excellent leadership of its minister, and under very difficult and changing conditions, doing a sound job for the people of Canada, and a job which I believe merits the respect and the support not only of every member of the House of Commons but of all the people of Canada as well.


Mr. Green:: Has the hon. member a report with respect to the reserves of the three forces?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am sorry that I have not those figures here at the moment.


Mr. D. A. Riley (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add my heartiest congratulations to the mover (Mr. Cauchon) and the seconder (Mr. Simmons) of the address in reply. The evidently careful preparation of their speeches and the able manner in which they delivered them is but further indication of the excellent way in which they continue to represent their respective and important constituencies.
Like other hon. members who have preceded me in the debate, I should like to express a word of appreciation of the gracious manner in which Their Royal Highnesses The Princess Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh have consented to visit my riding. The people there, in common with those throughout New Brunswick, are looking forward with keen anticipation to the visit to take place on November 6. I know local committees are expending great efforts in their endeavour to ensure that as many as possible of the children in the different cities in which visits will be made and as many as possible of the veterans and of the people generally will have a chance to catch at least a glimpse of the royal couple.
I feel that those in Ottawa who are in charge of arrangements, those who perhaps are guiding the tour, should co-operate in every possible way, always having due regard to the health of our royal visitors, so as to ensure that the efforts of those committees in trying to give as many as possible a glimpse of the royal couple will be successful.
I was pleased today to hear the announcement by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) because, in common with most members in the House of Commons who are conscious of the deep debt we owe to our veterans, I have been urging that something be done to increase the basic rate of pension. I am confident that if and when an increase in the basic rate is put through it will be as generous as have been increases

In the past. There have been graduated increases from the time when pensions were instituted in 1914, and I hope the increase now proposed will be in line with what has taken place in the past.
There are many matters of varying degrees of urgency I should like to draw to the attention of the house, and it is with deep regret I realize that the limited time allowed during this debate will not permit me to deal with them as effectively as I would have liked.
As a citizen of the Atlantic provinces, born in one, educated and settled in another, and ever keenly conscious of the many problems confronting all of them, I cannot help being alive to that part of the speech from the throne dealing with the great lakes-St. Lawrence deep waterways project. There seems to be a feeling abroad that violent opposition will be offered to the legislation instituting this project by many of the maritime members, when such legislation is brought before the house. There seems to be keen interest in the corridors of the parliament buildings and in the various offices of government, as well as a great deal of conjecture as to what attitude will be taken by maritimers toward the proposed St. Lawrence deep waterways project. As a member representing the largest single maritime constituency, in terms of population, let me make myself abundantly clear at the outset that I am not opposed in principle, but that I heartily approve in principle the St. Lawrence seaway project, as well as the hydroelectric development project which will no doubt be connected with it. I could scarcely reconcile any other attitude with the precepts of liberalism to which I have adhered very closely, precepts which have long guided my political conscience in determining what is best for the nation and its people.
When I say I agree in principle with the idea of the seaway, I am compelled to add that there are many aspects of it which must be carefully analysed and examined, and weighed most judiciously, before we proceed. At the risk of boring the membership of the house I should like to refer back to a speech I made at the last session of parliament, in the course of which I expressed interest in a more even development in Canada, a subject which was introduced at the last dominion-provincial conference held here in Ottawa in January of the present year.
It was stated there that large concentrations of industry in particular parts of Ontario, with little industry elsewhere in Ontario, created grave problems, and that a
The Address-Mr. Riley development of Canada with large concentrations of industry in some provinces, but with correspondingly small concentration in others, created an equally grave problem.
As part of its program the conference was requested to study ways and means whereby it could be provided that the country could proceed in a more even fashion, and that industry and natural resources could be developed more evenly. This expression of what seemed to be real concern for a more even development of our country came, not as one might expect from a maritimer, or from a citizen in a western province, but rather from the premier of Ontario. I was heartened by his words, and by what appeared to be his sincere regard for those sections of the country which were not as extensively populated or as highly industrialized as his central area. Having this in mind I feel certain that the proposals which I intend to put before this house today will have the support and approval of the premier of Ontario.
The events leading up to the Canadian decision to launch on its own, in the event that the United States government does not deem it advisable to proceed at this time, the seaway project remind me that these events followed closely upon the events leading up to the bogging down of the Passamaquoddy tidal power project. I was pleased that the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) and the junior hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) both made mention of Quoddy, as we have come to call it in a popular fashion in the New England states and the eastern provinces of Canada. It proves that they also, even though belonging to another political party, are fully conscious of the great problems confronting the maritime provinces and see the relative importance which this bears to the St. Lawrence seaway project.
I should like to congratulate the junior member for Queens upon his maiden speech. We were both born in the area surrounding Charlottetown and I do not think he need yield place to anybody in having made his maiden speech. Although I do not agree with everything he said, and I know he would not expect me to, I believe in giving credit where credit is due.
For those who are not familiar with the background of Quoddy I shall endeavour to outline briefly its history, having in mind that the rules might prevent me from doing this in a thorough fashion when the proposed seaway legislation is being debated. In 1926 the Dexter P. Cooper Company was formed with the objects of constructing dams across the Cobscook bay in the state of Maine and Passamaquoddy bay to. impound the waters

The Address-Mr. Riley touching the shores of the state of Maine and the province of New Brunswick. This company was incorporated in both the United States and Canada. While wide powers were granted to the company, under the Canadian legislation there were provisions which stated that the construction of the dams must be commenced within the next three years and that the plans must first be submitted to certain ministers of the crown for their examination and approval.
At the time the government of this country was naturally concerned with the possible effect of the building of the dams on the New Brunswick fisheries. The adjacent waters, including those in the constituency of the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart), contained the greatest concentration of young herring to be found anywhere on this continent or, as he has often stated, probably anywhere in the world. These are the fish that are processed into herrings. Those fisheries give employment to thousands of people and the net annual returns run into millions of dollars.
An international commission was set up but it had only a limited time at its disposal to determine what effects the proposed dams would have.
They found that the weir fisheries for young herrings inside the confines of Passamaquoddy bay and Cobscook bay would be greatly reduced but these fisheries represented only 2-5 per cent of the annual catch of the whole area. They went on to say that without further investigation they were not in position under the existing circumstances to indicate the extent of the effect upon the fisheries outside the bay of the construction of the dams. They stated that this could not be foretold. However, they did state that there was little probability of there being any serious effect upon the fisheries along the coast of Maine or surrounding Grand Manan island, which is a large island in the bay of Fundy the inhabitants of which are almost totally dependent upon the fishing industry.
The original plans for Quoddy were conceived by an outstanding engineer, Dexter
P.	Cooper. This gentleman lived on Cam-pobello island upon which the late President Roosevelt had his summer home. This island is at the mouth of Passamaquoddy bay. It was he who first studied the possibility of harnessing the great tides of the bay of Fundy in that area. His plans were drawn up with skill and imagination, they were tremendous in scope, and were designed to use a series of island barriers to control the mighty flood of water and to put to work one of the largest single undeveloped areas of power existing on the North American continent.

Lying behind these dams would be two large basins of water, one having an area of about one hundred square miles in Passamaquoddy bay and the other approximately thirty square miles in Cobscook bay. The difference in the water levels between these two basins would average nineteen feet and power would be generated by turbines in a large dam between the two basins. The flow of water would be continuous and unfailing. The controlled operation of the tidal gates would maintain a continuous although somewhat varying difference in the water level for twenty-four hours a day. When completed the project would have a theoretical capacity of twenty billion kilowatt hours per year. Latest estimates show that the capacity would actually be three billion kilowatt hours per year, which would result in there being made available one million horsepower per year.
Having this in mind, is it any wonder that the power-starved people of the maritime provinces look with somewhat dim approval upon the launching of the seaway project before effective steps are taken to determine the feasibility of Quoddy and other proposed power projects in the eastern provinces which would tend to increase our productive capacity, develop our home markets and largely eliminate the necessity of our having to appear before transportation bodies with our hats in hand asking for preferential freight rates?
The late President Roosevelt, who spent his summers on Campobello island in the province of New Brunswick, was also struck by the immense potentialities of Quoddy. He thought it could provide New England and the maritime provinces with a never failing source of cheap power. Here let me again point out the parallel. Strenuous efforts were made to interest the Canadian government in the development of this international project which, if feasible, would obviously accrue to the benefit of both countries, but at the time, just as is happening now in reverse the Canadian government did not see fit to provide funds sufficient to enable the project to get started.
To continue with this parallel, the United States government then decided to embark on another but all-American and smaller project. President Roosevelt felt that if they could get the project under way in this manner-and mark again the parallel-the Canadian government could more easily be persuaded to take part. The all-American project was admittedly less feasible, less practical from an engineering standpoint and with less power potential, but it was so laid out-and mark once more the parallel-that it could be readily adapted to an international

project, an international plan for joint development, should the Canadian people decide to share in it.
In 1935 the war department of the United States of America, under the federal emergency relief appropriation act, made available a certain amount of money to commence the project, and work was carried on under the guidance of the United States army through 1935 and well into 1936. Unfortunately since that time no further funds have been available and the project has lain dormant. But the village of Quoddy, situated on the shores of the state of Maine overlooking our Canadian bay of Fundy, stands out as a grim reminder to the people of the New England states and the maritime provinces that here, but for the lack of a display of interest by the Canadian government, was the commencement of a great international power project that could have improved the economic status of millions of people on either side of the border.
President Truman himself has constantly stated his complete approval of the international Quoddy project. I note that the other day our own Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) discussed with him the possibility of a joint venture on the seaway project, and I am wondering if President Roosevelt did not at that time suggest to the then prime minister, and through him to the Canadian people, that because he was so wholeheartedly in support of the Quoddy project perhaps the American people would like to see some official display of interest in Quoddy. 1 know that on September 27, in the course of a press conference at the White House, the President of the United States reiterated his full support of Quoddy and stated that he would like to see it get under way. Is it any wonder, therefore, that the congress of the United States of America has seen fit to turn a cool shoulder to the efforts put forward to interest that legislative body in international co-operation on the seaway?
On November 9, 1948, the whole Quoddy matter was referred to the international joint commission by the governments of both countries. In 1949 the commission appointed a board consisting of a couple of representatives from each country to carry out a preliminary investigation. In March, 1950, a report was made by the board to the commission to the effect that the Passamaquoddy tidal power project could be physically engineered, constructed and operated, that determination of its economic feasibility must await a full scale survey, and that such a survey would cost approximately $3,900,000, the cost to be borne equitably by the two countries.
The Address-Mr. Riley
Since that time what has happened? On March 8 of this year the hon. member for Charlotte posed a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). He asked if there had been any report yet from the commission, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs answered as follows, as found at page 1025 of Hansard:
In reply to the hon. member for Charlotte I would say that the international joint commission made its report to the two governments on October 23, 1950, recommending that a further investigation would be necessary to enable it to make recommendations concerning the feasibility of the Passamaquoddy project, and has estimated that such an investigation would cost $3,900,000. The report suggests that the cost might be apportioned between the two countries in proportion to the benefits that each country would derive from the completed project. This report is still under study by the interested federal authorities, and has been referred to the government of New Brunswick.
No mention was made in the reply to that question of the fact that the board, which reported to the commission, had stated that the project could be physically engineered, constructed and operated. That was in March of this year. Apparently the authorization of the expenditure of a minor portion of some $4 million is still under consideration by our Canadian officialdom and has been for nearly a year, while at the same time we seem to be fully prepared to go ahead with the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars- in launching the St. Lawrence seaway project on our own as an all-Canadian venture.
Earlier this year following discussions with interested parties in the state of Maine, I endeavoured to arouse some official interest in Ottawa in the Quoddy project but I did not meet with very much encouragement. In the meantime I understand that with the aid of new sonic devices, United States government engineers have been active in the Passamaquoddy area and it may be that the pitifully small amount of $4 million, estimated as the cost of the completion of this survey may be considerably reduced through the use of this new apparatus. Even if this is so, and even if the government of the United States is willing to pay the complete cost of the survey, I maintain that it is the duty of the Canadian people to express some official interest in it through our government and to appropriate our share of the funds necessary to determine once and for all if the Quoddy project is feasible, and particularly from an economic standpoint.
There are tremendous investments of capital in the fisheries of that area and it must be determined, to the satisfaction of both the fishermen and the processors about the bay of Fundy, along the gulf of Maine,
208	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Argue and particularly in the Passamaquoddy and Cobscook areas, that the power project will not affect their livelihoods too adversely.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that it is a disturbing thought for all of us from the maritimes, sharing as we do a warm spirit of fellowship with our neighbours across the border, that we are not able to convince the Canadian people that our country should endorse and encourage the completion of the Quoddy project. With the knowledge that the hon. members of this house have of conditions in the maritimes and also with the keen interest they have displayed in our many problems, I should like to ask them this question. Is it fair to expect the people of our Atlantic provinces to enthuse over the proposed seaway project when but little or no interest is shown in Quoddy and other power projects promoted in an intelligent manner by the people from our part of the country? If the government of our country will officially endorse the completion of the Quoddy survey, pay our share of the cost and give some form of assurance that, if feasible, Canada will be prepared to proceed to bear its share of the burden of the construction of the project jointly with the United States of America, then I am certain that there will be a much better feeling promoted in the congress of the United States of America for a joint seaway plan and that the people along the Atlantic seaboard of our country will have from peoples in other sections of the country more ample evidence of good faith in their development.
I know that this may appear to hon. members as another plaintive cry from the maritimes. But I wish to assure them that for generations our people have clung to their farms and their small industries. We do not propose to give them up and to move further inland. But unless something is done on a national scale to assist us in our efforts to develop what we know to be provinces rich in potential resources, there remains a dim prospect for our children who will be coming along in the future.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to join with the others who have congratulated the mover (Mr. Cauchon) and seconder (Mr. Simmons) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I think that each of them did credit to himself and to the constituency which he represents.
I was indeed interested and pleased to hear the announcement made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) this afternoon that legislation would be brought down at this session to deal with the war disability pension. In the last few weeks I have had


the same experience as the other members of parliament who have been approached by veterans organizations in their constituency, asking them to impress upon the government the need for an increase in veterans pensions and the war veterans allowance. In a time like this when our country, joined with other countries, is engaged in an effort to maintain democracy in the western world, it seems to me that one of the best things we can do to promote democracy at home is to see that those young Canadians who in two past wars made great sacrifices have not made those great sacrifices in vain but that the Canadian people will, through their government, compensate them, by an appropriate increase in their pensions, for the drastic increase in the cost of living over the last few years.
While we welcome the announcement of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, I think it is all the more necessary for individual members of parliament to impress upon the government the need for a generous increase in the war disability pension before the announcement is made. Most of us know that once the announcement is made as to the percentage increase, little can be done at that time to have the announced amount increased. I should therefore like to impress upon the government the desirability of granting the veterans' full demand that the war disability pension should be increased by 33J per cent at this session, and that the war veterans allowance should be increased to $50 for a single person and $100 for a married couple.
In the speech from the throne one of the important announcements is that the St. Lawrence seaway project is to be gone ahead with by Canada, if necessary, alone. Like the hon. member for Saint John-Alberf (Mr. Riley), I too am in favour of the St. Lawrence seaway project as such. I feel that the people of the prairies also will favour the building of the St. Lawrence seaway. But to me it seems strange that the government should not have given the same consideration to the construction of the South Saskatchewan river dam, a project of great importance to the people of Saskatchewan; it is one that will mean great power development, some protection against recurring droughts and, we hope, the starting of new industries in that area. The announcement in regard to the South Saskatchewan river dam is not that the government here is prepared to pay its share and go ahead. The only reference to it is that a commission has been appointed and that studies are under way. The people of Saskatchewan will support the St. Lawrence seaway project as long as this government will at the same time commence construction of the South Saskatchewan development

project. The St. Lawrence seaway project will cost eight or ten times as much as the South Saskatchewan project. I have no complaint whatever to make about the development of the St. Lawrence seaway, but I plead with the government that, when they start the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway, they at the same time start construction of the South Saskatchewan dam.
In the speech from the throne I noticed an announcement that I welcomed. It was to the effect that legislation will be brought in to implement that part of the report of the royal commission on transportation which suggested the payment of a $7 million subsidy to help cover the cost of the gap in the railroads going through northern Ontario. That is a subsidy, Mr. Speaker. We in this group have moved an amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne asking the government to implement price control and subsidies. The government says it is opposed to price control. I know this government is not opposed to subsidies. They are paying many subsidies to many industries. The gold mining industry is being given $9-5 million. There is freight assistance on feed grains coming to Ontario and Quebec, which last year amounted to $16-5 million. I feel the government should do something more in the way of paying subsidies to the railways. Certainly other parts of the report of the royal commission on transportation will not necessarily result in an equalization of freight rates for the people on the prairies. The ink on the report of the royal commission was scarcely dry when the board of transport commissioners once again granted the railway companies another 12 per cent horizontal increase in freight rates. With that further increase in freight rates, competition from the trucks becomes more keen. The railways lose additional freight traffic. Almost all of the new automobiles manufactured in eastern Canada which come into our province are coming in by truck. The railways have lost that important source of revenue, because they have priced themselves out of the market.
As the railways lose their most lucrative freight to trucks, additional freight rates become necessary and the railways then lose further freight revenue. It is just one big merry-go-round. So far as I can see the only solution to the problem is the solution advanced in the Saskatchewan government's submission, namely, that a much larger subsidy should be paid to the railroads to enable them to keep freight rates down to the point where the railways are handling larger traffic with subsequently increased revenues.
The Address-Mr. Argue
I am sure everyone in the house is conscious of the results of inflation. In a period of inflation the strong do not suffer. It is the weak who suffer; the old age pensioners; the labourer who is unorganized; people who are crippled and others who must live on a government annuity or other fixed income. Those are the people in our economy who are suffering because of the present inflation. The cost of the defence effort has not been equally spread amongst the Canadian people. In the last year there has been a severe redistribution of purchasing power amongst the people of Canada. The weak have less with which to buy the necessities of life. Today big corporations have as much or in some cases more. If this government has turned its back on price controls, as it has, then other means to cope with the burden of inflation are necessary.
Since the last increase in the old age pension, which brought the old age pension up to $40 per month, the increase in the cost of living has made that pension worth $33.57. If we are to maintain the purchasing power of the old age pension, then that pension should be increased to at least $50 per month. Back in 1945 this government implemented the family allowance. I believe everyone must agree that the family allowance legislation was good legislation. It was a right and proper thing to have a redistribution of purchasing power in order to assist parents with families, particularly those with larger families. While the government implemented the family allowance and established a minimum payment of $5 per month per child and a maximum payment of $8 per month per child in 1945, since that time they have taken back a goodly part of those payments. The $5 granted in 1945 is worth $3.16 today. The $8 is now worth $5.07. If the government did no more than maintain the value of the family allowance, the minimum payment should now be $8 per month and the maximum payment $13 per month.
If the government will not deal with inflation through price controls it must deal with inflation through another method, by a redistribution of purchasing power to assist those who are less able to help themselves meet the increased burden of inflation. To me it is strange that a government that had price controls during the war, which we all agree worked very well, should now hold up its hands in holy horror every time the C.C.F. suggests that this same government should once again implement price controls. On Monday we heard the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) make an argument that while Britain had tried price controls and subsidies

The Address-Mr. Argue they were not very successful. There was no advantage in Canada trying the same kind of control that had failed in Britain.
I noticed he referred to a pamphlet "This Cost of Living Business" put out by the Labour party. He said it was interesting and valuable reading. The Prime Minister went on to quote profusely from the pamphlet to support his argument that in Britain price controls were ineffective. If that pamphlet is as interesting and as valuable as he says, then I think the Prime Minister should have also quoted this part of the pamphlet referring to the advantages of price controls and subsidies, the advantage of maintaining utility goods and the advantage of rent controls. Speaking of price controls the pamphlet says at page 6:
Had it not been for price controls, the cost of living would now be very much higher than it is.
In other words, while price control was not 100 per cent effective in the United Kingdom, nevertheless if the government had not had price control the cost of living would have been much higher. I believe the same thing could be said about Canada. Had the government attempted price controls in Canada, it might not have been able to hold an absolute freeze but it would certainly have prevented the runaway inflation we have today. Speaking of subsidies the pamphlet says that subsidies have, to some extent, shielded Britain from rising world prices. If subsidies have proven to be one of the most effective ways of reducing the cost of living, that is what our amendment asks for, food subsidies. The Prime Minister says this is a valuable pamphlet, and the pamphlet says that one of the best ways to keep down the price of food is by the use of subsidies.
If the Prime Minister had wanted to learn something further from the same pamphlet he would find that it says:
The control of rents is a vital part of the control of the cost of living. Rent is the first charge on almost all wage earners' income. High rents mean less to spend on other necessities.
What did the government do in regard to rents? They handed them back to the provinces. While some provinces have attempted to maintain rent control, they are not very successful, because there are ten authorities handling rent control when there should be only one.
The United States have tried price control. While the administration there is solidly in favour of price control, they have difficulty in getting the legislation approved by congress. The point is that in the United States the administration is in favour of price control and has implemented it as far as possible. Their price control, while not completely effective, nevertheless has been of great help


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, my first statement is one of sincere congratulation to the hon. member (Mr. Cauchon) who moved that this house extend its thanks to His Excellency for the speech delivered at the opening of the session, and to the hon. member (Mr. Simmons) who seconded the motion. Both spoke in the best tradition of such speeches.
For some months now the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and others, including certain newspapers, have stated flatly that our defence production program is falling behind and not likely to achieve the objectives set out by this government. As minister responsible for this program I wish to state categorically that, in my opinion, which is based on a detailed knowledge of the preparations, as well as some considerable experience in this type of program, we are making good progress. In due course the record will speak for itself but my purpose this afternoon is to give hon. members the story of our achievements to date, and some indication of what can be expected within the next few months.
The defence program on which we have embarked in discharge of our treaty obligations, and our national responsibilities, falls into two main parts: the direct military program on the one hand and the vitally important resource development program on

The Address-Mr. Howe the other. An appreciation of Canada's defence efforts can only be obtained by considering both of these important contributions to the objectives of the North Atlantic treaty. We are not at war; we are not preparing for war. We, in company with our allies, are strengthening our common defences and expanding our resources so that in the event of an emergency then we could sustain the great effort we would have to make. The fact that resource development is more palatable to any country than armament production does not in any way detract from its usefulness or its importance towards the common end. It would not be proper for us to concentrate all our efforts on one, or on the other; the two must go hand in hand.
But first let me deal with the direct program of the Department of National Defence. The amount of cash appropriated by parliament for the Department of National Defence and the Department of Defence Production during the fiscal year 1951-52 is $1,729 million. National defence appropriations total $1,614 million, including $166 million for mutual aid. The Department of Defence Production appropriations are $115 million. Of the total of $1,729 million about $1,108 million has been
made available for construction, production and procurement through the Department of Defence Production. The remaining funds are required for military pay and allowances, maintenance and other services not provided through the Department of Defence Production.
In addition to this cash disbursement authority, parliament has also authorized the entry into commitments which would enable the government to initiate production now in order to complete its $5 billion program by 1954.
Orders for defence goods, excluding capital assistance and stockpiling, placed during the first half of this fiscal year amount to a value of $1,122 million, as compared with some $760 million for the whole of the previous fiscal year. Placements rose from $464 million in the first quarter of 1951-52 to $658 million in the second quarter. I have available a table giving details of orders placed which could be included in the Hansard record if hon. members so desired.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The table is as follows:



TABLE I

[Stage Direction]
ORDERS PLACED FOR DEFENCE BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ON CANADIAN ACCOUNT For the Fiscal Years 1949-50, 1950-51 and First Half of 1951-52
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF DEFENCE ORDERS $ millions
Country in which orders were placed	1949-50	1950-51	1951-52	First Quarter	Second Quarter	Total First HalfCanada	204	623	274	472	746United States	15	128	188	183	371United Kingdom	5	8	2	3	5T otal	225	759	464	658	1,122
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Howe

[Stage Direction]
S millions
Program	1949-50	1950-51	1951-52	First Quarter	Second Quarter	Total First HalfAircraft	70-6	299-7	167-3	265-9	433-2Shipbuilding	41	76-9	68-4	32-0	100-4T ank-automoti ve	12-4	64-6	59-0	19-9	78-9Weapons	0-7	19-2	19-1	29-5	48-6Ammunition and explosives	2-4	19 6	16-6	44-0	60-6Electronics and communication equip-	ment	16-6	84-1	21-3	95-0	116-3Construction and building maintenance.	28-7	67-7	49-9	57-5	107-4Other programs including: fuels and lubricants, clothing and equipage, medical and dental equip-	ment and supplies, etc	89-3	127-7	63-0	114-5	117-5Total	224-8	759-5	464-6	658-3 [DOT]	1,122-9
Expenditures for deliveries and progress payments made in the first half on this fiscal year amounted to $267 million. In addition, outlays for capital assistance were $26 million. The rate of disbursement, however, has been increasing rapidly during recent months. Expenditures during the first quarter of the present fiscal year averaged $25 million per month, but during the second quarter rose to about $70 million per month. Disbursements will be greatly accelerated over the next twelve months, and may approach an average of $125 million a month or an annual rate of $1,500 million. The peak rate of expenditure will probably be reached early in 1953.
Production of defence goods in Canada for export will also increase rapidly during the remainder of the current fiscal year. According to present schedules it may be in the order of $40 million a quarter by the middle of 1952.
When I spoke in this house on June 14 of this year I reviewed in some detail the status of our major production programs, including aircraft, electronics, ships, guns, ammunition, and mechanical transport. I now propose to review these programs again to record our progress since that time.
The Canadian military aircraft program, as presently planned, will cost approximately $1,200 million. This amount is equivalent to roughly one-third of the total Canadian defence procurement program. Several types of aircraft are being manufactured or rebuilt.
Production of the F-86E Sabre jet interceptor fighter is already well under way. One hundred and twenty-two of these aircraft have come off the production line, as of the beginning of this week, and 72 of these have been delivered to the R.C.A.F. Future delivery schedules depend primarily upon the rate at which we are able to obtain engines from the United States.
This week at the A. V. Roe plant I turned over to the R.C.A.F. its first Canadian-designed and built CF-100 aircraft. Reports have appeared in some quarters claiming that there has been unwarranted delay in the production of the CF-100. The people originating these reports apparently have not realized that until recently A. V. Roe has been engaged on a program of development rather than on one of production. Furthermore, it should be recognized that design, experimentation, and tooling up for production of the latest types of jet engines and aircraft cannot be accomplished overnight. Moreover when compared with similar projects in the United Kingdom and the United States, the record of the CF-100 has been an enviable one. It has taken us less time to get this aircraft and its Canadian designed Orenda engines from the drawing board into production than was the case with the Canberra in England and the Scorpion in the United States.
Static tests operation of the Orenda engine was first successfully carried out in March, 1949. A pre-production contract for the CF-100 was let in November, 1949, for the developing of this aircraft to the point where it could be put into quantity production. The first development aircraft flew in March, 1950, fitted with Rolls Royce Avon engines. The completion of the aircraft equipped with Orenda engines now turned over to the
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Howe R.C.A.F. marks the culmination of a most difficult but successful development program.
The production program is just now getting under way, and full scale production is necessarily still many months off. It should be remembered, however, that in producing a plane such as the CF-100 it is not enough to establish a production line in the aircraft plant, although obviously that is no small job. It is also necessary to ensure a satisfactory flow of the great number of complex components that go into such a plane; and to obtain the required parts, A. V. Roe Company has placed a large number of subcontracts from Winnipeg to Halifax. In many instances, Canadian suppliers of the different parts that will go into the CF-100 and the Orenda must enlarge their facilities or open up new plants in order to meet A. V. Roe's requirements. Typical examples of such expansion include Canadian Steel improvement Limited in Toronto which will produce steel and nonferrous forged blades; Rotax (Canada) Limited at Scarboro turning out fuel systems for the Orenda engines; Cockshutt Plow's new development at Renfrew for the manufacture of combustion chambers; Light Alloys Limited new foundry at Haleys which will make magnesium castings and forgings; the Fleet Manufacturing Company which will produce wings at its Fort Erie plant, and Chatco Steel Products Limited supplying tail assemblies.
Until these components, many of which are being produced in Canada for the first time, are available in sufficient volume, quantity production of the CF-100 is clearly impossible. Despite these obvious facts, certain individuals persist in criticising the CF-100 program. This, of course, is not new. The same type of criticism was levelled at the North Star when it was at about the same stage of production. Hon. members will agree that there is not an aeroplane flying today that has a record comparable to the North Star.
The F-86E and the CF-100 are two major aircraft projects, but there are other important programs being undertaken in this field. The Harvard primary trainer will start coming off the production line before the end of this month. At the present time we are purchasing the engines for this plane, but by next summer we expect that Pratt and Whitney of Canada will be producing engines in their new Canadian plant just outside of Montreal.
The Beaver general purpose aircraft is now being manufactured in Canada in substantial volume for the United States air force.

Tooling up is under way for the manufacture of the T-33 jet "Shooting Star" type trainer for the Royal Canadian Air Force, production being scheduled for next year.
In June I advised the house that Canada would participate in the production of the United States twin-engine trainer, the Beech-craft T-36A. This is a brand new plane. The prototype has yet to be built and flight-tested. Full scale production is therefore not expected to get under way before 1953.
In addition to these production programs we are now engaged in the reconditioning and modification of Lancasters, Harvards, Mitchells, Expeditors, DC-3's and Avengers. This work is being done at Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, and St. Johns, Quebec. In addition, aircraft maintenance and repair is being carried out at these cities as well as at Vancouver, Calgary and Halifax.
Outlays on the construction of naval vessels and repair and maintenance being undertaken on behalf of the Royal Canadian Navy will result in expenditures of from $150 to $200 million between April 1, 1951, and March 31, 1953. In addition contracts are being discussed with Canadian manufacturers for torpedoes to a value of some $39 million.
In January I mentioned that contracts had been allotted for one icebreaker, 14 minesweepers, 14 escort vessels and 5 gate vessels, as well as a number of harbour craft.
Of the 14 minesweepers on order, 7 are scheduled for launching by late fall 1951 and the remaining 7 by early spring and summer of 1952. Eight ships are scheduled for sea trials during the spring and early summer of 1952 and the remaining 6 for midsummer and early fall of the same year. Four of the five gate vessels will be launched before freeze-up and two of them will finish their sea trials by the end of the year. The fifth gate vessel will be launched in the spring of 1952.
The first of the escort vessels is scheduled for launching by the end of next month, two more for launching in the spring of 1952, two in the fall of the same year, five during 1953, and four by the spring of 1954.
The bulk of contracts for scheduled items such as turbine engines, auxiliaries, and other components have been let to manufacturers in this country.
I also mentioned last summer that we were converting and refitting thirty-four minesweepers and frigates. Inspection of these

vessels has now been completed and preliminary work is under way. Hull repairs are well advanced on most ships.
Destroyers are also being modernized for antisubmarine work and expenditures are being made for the seaward defence of the principal Canadian harbours.
The guns 'and. ammunition program presents particular difficulties. Having taken the decision to standardize on United States type guns and ammunition as far as is practicable, we have had to make a detailed study of the various types of ammunition and weapons in order to determine which we can usefully produce in this country. This involved securing from the United States detailed plans and specifications. It has also been necessary to make arrangements for production experts from this country to visit the various arsenals of the United States in order to survey production methods and techniques. Despite the fact that we have enjoyed the greatest co-operation from the United States military authorities, this has been, of necessity, a time-consuming operation. Nevertheless some considerable progress has been made.
Production is already under way on 50 calibre ammunition and 3-5 inch and 2-25 inch rockets for Canadian armed forces. Deliveries of the 3-inch 50 calibre gun to the United States and Canadian navies will begin in December. By the end of the current fiscal year production will have commenced on the antisubmarine mortars and on practically all the large and medium calibre guns, mortars and ammunition required by our armed forces.
The guns and ammunition programs are expected to accelerate throughout 1952 to peak production in the fourth quarter of next year.
Two explosive plants, one manufacturing picrite and the other a number of explosives including RDX/TNT and rifle powder, are already in production. TNT, cannon powder and double base powder will be in production in Canada early in 1952. Phosphorous and hexachlorethane are also being made to government specification, the latter principally for export to the United States. The timing of this program is expected to coincide in the early stages with the requirements of Canadian shell-filling plants.
At the last session we had a very frank discussion concerning the desirability of seeking standardization of small arm weapons and ammunition among the NATO countries. A complete study of this question is now being
The Address-Mr. Howe undertaken by the principal NATO countries, and in the meantime we have no alternative but to suspend production of weapons and ammunition of the smaller calibres.
Last April I released a statement in which I advised that preparations were being made for the partial manufacture and complete assembly of J ton, | ton and 2} ton military trucks in Canada. These orders were placed with our three major automobile manufacturers and I am delighted with the progress which they have been able to make in such a short time. This week I had an opportunity of visiting both the Chrysler Corporation plant in Windsor and the General Motors plant in Oshawa to examine the first trucks which they have produced. Authorization has also been given to the Ford Motor Company to commence production of the \ ton 4x4 jeep, which we hope will be coming out by next December.
At the General Motors plant, a 2J ton 6x6 military truck is now in production and will be coming off the line at the rate of 7 vehicles a day by the end of next month. This vehicle is practically a duplicate of the kind that is being produced for the United States forces. It can be equipped with a snorkel breathing device which enables it to ford water up to five feet in depth. It is bigger and faster than the 6x6 vehicle that General Motors built in the last war and much easier to operate. All the vehicles are fitted with towing attachments and controls for operating trailers. It is planned that several thousands of these trailers will be produced in Canada in the near future.
At the Chrysler Corporation in Windsor I had the opportunity of seeing the first of the | ton 4x4 military trucks coming off their assembly line. In these two plants we have established a source of United States-type vehicles that can be expanded quickly to meet any scale of production required by our armed services.
Naturally we are continuing to place orders with Canadian manufacturers for commercial-type 'vehicles and for the repair and maintenance of existing equipment.
The total Canadian electronics program as now tentatively outlined amounts to $560 million. Of this $110 million represents electronic gear to be installed in F-86E and CF-100 aircraft. The remainder includes expenditures for receiving and transmission sets and radar equipment for all three services.
[Stage Direction]
The Address

Mr. Howe
Anti-aircraft fire control radars are already under production for the Canadian armed forces. Twenty-four sets have already been delivered. Deliveries of the one-mile infantry pack set are expected to begin by December. There is every possibility that we will receive additional orders for these types of equipment from one or more of our NATO allies.
Canadian plants are now being called upon to produce the bulk of the equipment to be installed in the North American radar screen and to furnish the equipment necessary to complete the network of communications vital to the defence of this continent. Because of the development required in this program before production can be undertaken, it is unlikely that its full impact will be felt by industry until the last months of 1952.
Contracts presently being administered or in process of being placed by Defence Construction Limited will amount to $440 million in the three fiscal years between April 1951 and March 1954. These outlays provide for the erection of radar screen buildings and supporting facilities, airfields, barracks, training facilities and quarters for married personnel. Outlays will probably reach a peak about the middle of next year. Deliveries of scarce building materials, such as structural steel, reinforcing bars, and wire mesh, while presenting a problem in individual cases, are not expected to cause serious delays in the realization of this program.
Contract awards since the incorporation of Defence Construction Limited late last year have amounted to $146 million. Fifty-three million dollars' worth of new construction has now been completed.
Another of our major activities has been in the field of machine tools. The Department of Defence Production has purchased nearly $17 million worth of tools in the first five months of the present fiscal year. Over $2J million worth of these orders have been placed in Canada, approximately $1J million in the United Kingdom, and over $12-J million in the United States and other countries.
These tools, when purchased by the department, are made available to Canadian contractors holding government contracts. Since they are bulk purchased it means not only a saving to the government in purchase price, but it also helps to obviate long delays which would otherwise be inevitable in the various production programs.
The $300 million clothing and textiles program is making rapid progress. Peak production rates of essential primary textiles have already been achieved. By the end of the calendar year the government will have received over 16 million yards of cotton textiles, 4£ million yards of wool fabrics, and over 6 million yards of synthetic! textiles. In the case of wool fabrics, this excellent performance was possible only because the government, realizing the urgent need of entering the raw wool market to secure adequate supplies, purchased eight million pounds of raw wool and tops. As a consequence, firms with defence contracts were able to begin production at once on military orders.
Now that primary textiles are coming forward in an increasing flow, the second part of the program, converting fabrics to garments, can be accelerated. Schedules of production so far outlined call for the delivery by the end of the calendar year of one million pairs of wool socks, 550,000 wool shirts, 250,000 cotton shirts, 150,000 suits of army battle dress, and 400,000 wool blankets.
The production of military boots and shoes is also proceeding at a high rate. We expect to get from the factories by the end of December, 1951, over 300,000 pairs of boots and 140,000 pairs of shoes.
In these few minutes I have been unable to do more than outline some of the major aspects of our direct military production program. I hope however that I have said enough to convince you, as I am convinced, that we are well on our way to the achievement of the objectives laid down by the government earlier this year.
In addition to the production of military end items, Canadian industry is pursuing another program which I am firmly convinced is of equal importance. I refer to the development of the many strategic materials which are to be found in Canada. None of us know how long this rearmament period may last. But it is obvious that if we are to maintain and expand our own industries, while at the same time making available to our allies strategic materials that are in world-wide short supply, we must do everything possible to develop these materials as rapidly as possible.
As the program is now planned, nearly $1£ billion will be spent on the development of basic resources of iron ore, non-ferrous metals, petroleum and bulk chemicals for the period 1950-1955. This figure will probably be even higher because of other projects still
[Stage Direction]
in the planning stage. In addition, $1 billion will be spent on the development of hydroelectric power.
In many instances our resources have been left untouched in the past because of the high cost of exploitation. Rising prices and physical shortages are now changing the picture. Due to more favourable cost-price relationships, projects can now be considered feasible that were formerly uneconomic. We all realize the seriousness of inflationary trends in the price structure. Nevertheless we should not overlook the fact that with present prices and the prospect of continuing high levels of demand, it is now possible to bring into production certain important sources of urgently needed supplies that would otherwise remain undeveloped.
Another factor is that businessmen have found that investment in Canadian industrial expansion is a sound proposition. Political stability and good working relationships among government, industry and labour combine in providing an atmosphere favourable to investors. Whether it comes from Canada, the United States, or farther afield there is, I think, little doubt but that the capital needed to bring Canada's resources into production will be forthcoming.
Furthermore the fiscal measures taken by the Canadian government encourage resources development. Income tax concessions include a three-year tax free period for mining companies after they start commercial operations. Exploration, prospecting and development expenses incurred by oil corporations or by
The Address-Mr. Howe mining companies, are also deductible, until such time as the project starts to operate on a commercial basis. Generous allowance for depletion is deductible in computing both corporation and personal income taxes. Mining and petroleum enterprises are not subject to deferred depreciation, a measure which was introduced to check inflation and reduce nonessential investment. In addition, the government is prepared to grant accelerated depreciation where it is felt this is necessary to encourage further basic expansion.
In certain urgent cases capital assistance is granted to speed up development. This has been done in connection with the reactivation of the Emerald tungsten mine in British Columbia and to defray part of the cost of building a railway to a new nickel-copper mine in northern Manitoba. In addition, special priority assistance is given to industries developing other basic resources. Approved projects receive priority treatment in procuring scarce materials such as structural steel, copper wire and other items that are now under an order-approval system of allocation.
A great deal has been said about the details of our resource development program and I will not repeat it now. However, with the permission of the house, I would like to have two tables included in the Hansard record.
If there is no objection, I will ask that these two tables be placed on Hansard.
Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The tables are as follows:



DEVELOPMENT OF STRATEGICALLY IMPORTANT RESOURCES IN CANADA


[Stage Direction]
Selected Industries
Investment in Development and New Building and Machinery 1950-1955 (Millions of Canadian Dollars)
		Investment	
Industry	1950 (Actual)	1951 (Preliminary)	Value of Expansion Projects Now Being Undertaken for Completion in 1955 or before.Aluminum Smelting	$ 3-4	$ 18-2	$233All other non-ferrous metal smelting, refining and processing.. .	19-2	5-0	150Iron Ore Mining	5-7	23-8	226Primary Iron and Steel	
Petroleum and Natural Gas:	15-7	66-9	88(a) Exploration and DevelopmentC1)	62-4	70-9	300(b) Transmission and Refining	21-5	37-7	213Chemical Productsf2)	32-8	64-3	127Total	ICO-7	286-8	1,337Hydro-electric Power	344-5	403-8	1,200
(') Excluding Acquisition of Land Rights, f*) Including Petro-chemical Projects.
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Howe
TABLE II Selected Minerals
Estimates of Total Production Capacity 1950-1955
(Thousands of Short Tons Unless Otherwise Noted)
Material	Actual Output 1950	Estimated Capacity 1950	Estimated Capacity 1955	Percent Increase Capacity 1950-195580	so	250	210395	415	603	453,617	3,617	19,000	430262	272 (2)	300	10170	190(2)	205	8311	320(2) 137	406	27123	155	130 001	0-001	2	0-313	0-313	0-600	951-8	5-0	5-0	0100	100	550	4503,300	3,700	4,400	2181	
(') Maximum economic rate-annual average.
(2) Based on the highest quarterly rate of output during 1950.
Without burdening the house with too many figures and statistics I have tried to give an appreciation of the progress to date of our defence procurement. No program of this size can be expected to proceed without difficulties. Of course we have our difficulties, but the progress we have made to date is, I believe, such as to justify considerable satisfaction.
Let me remind the house again of the nature of our program. It is not a program designed solely to produce great quantities of war material in short order. There is a large element of insurance in it, since we are building now for production levels much in excess of anything that is included in the present planned procurement. For example, our program includes fourteen destroyer escorts to be produced during a period of three years. We are, however, building a plant for the production of the propulsion machinery that would be capable of producing at more than this rate in a single year. Again in the aircraft program we are building plants that are capable of doubling or trebling present output of engines and airframes. In the explosives field, we are rehabilitating the Valleyfield plant of Canadian Arsenals so that it will be capable of producing at least double the currently planned rate of production. Many other examples could be given, but it is clear that a program such as this is unlikely to appear spectacular in the early stages by any statistical measurement of output.

In his report to the President of the United States on his third quarter of 1951 production, Charles E. Wilson stated that his defence production program is now emerging from the tooling stage. That is about the position of the Canadian production program. We are now placing orders at a rate approaching $200 million per month, and we are making actual cash outlays for procurement at the present time of $70 to $80 million per month. Within the next twelve months we will undoubtedly reach a rate of expenditure of between $100 and $125 million per month.
I make no apology for the present status of the program. I am satisfied that we are making good progress toward the sensible goals we have set, and I am confident that we will achieve our objectives.
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to deal with any of the questions relating to national defence or defence production today, as I understand there is a motion which will be given consideration on Monday, in connection with which by agreement it was understood defence would be discussed. I am speaking again in this debate primarily because, before the vote is taken on the subamendment, I wish to deal with it and the position I propose to take with regard to it.
I wish, however, to deal with one or two other points that have come up and which, it seems to me, have a bearing on the whole discussion that has taken place, particularly on the position that the members of this

house should take in regard to what is unquestionably the most vital domestic problem before us and one which is being skated over rather lightly by those who have suddenly come forward from the government benches to discuss the subjects that may be brought forward in this debate.
The debate opened with reference to the cost of living and the inflation which is the other side of the same problem; and many of the hon. members of this house have sought to impress upon the government the urgent need for some action which will stem the rising cost of living. There has been every indication that the members of this house would welcome any indication by the government of any effective measures they have to put forward in addition to those which have already been presented. It appeared to me that some significance might be attached to the fact that in the speech from the throne the government said steps would be taken to deal with this subject which was of concern to the government as well as to the people of Canada. When the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) rose in this debate, however, he indicated quite clearly that at the present time the government has no intention of taking any steps which have not been indicated to this house and, through this house, to the people of Canada. In the statement that has just been made to the house there was one brief reference to something which has an extremely important bearing on the urgency of this problem. I think I am quoting the exact words when I say that the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe), who has just spoken, said that it is doubtful if the full impact of these orders will be felt by industry until the later months of 1952. That, in itself, emphasizes why it is so necessary that everything be done at this time to prepare for the pressures that are still to come. If it is true, and I am sure it is, that the heaviest inflationary pressures are still to come, then this is the time when, through legislation adopted by this house or through orders in council passed by the government under the extremely wide powers of the emergency legislation already in force, this subject should be tackled without further delay.
If the cost of living can mount to this extent before the heaviest inflationary pressures have been felt, then it needs very little imagination to contemplate what may happen when these heavier inflationary pressures do come in 1952. At the time I introduced the amendment to the motion calling for the adoption of the speech from the throne, I pointed out the arguments we have already made in this house on a number of different
The Address-Mr. Drew occasions, and emphasized the fact that we have at no time suggested there was any simple or magic formula, but rather we have pointed out that this is a complex problem and that there are a number of ways in which it may be tackled, if it is to be tackled at all. We emphasized the fact that the first and most direct way to deal with this is to strike at the base of the inflationary pressures by reducing all possible nondefence expenditures by the , government. Economists in this and every great commercial country have emphasized over and over again, but more particularly in recent months, that there is no place where inflation can be dealt with so effectively as in the case of government expenditures, which not only exercise great inflationary pressures but also offer an indication to the people themselves of the attitude taken by government toward this problem.
It is not at all surprising that the people of Canada do not yet share that sense of urgency which they felt in years not long past, when the government itself offers no evidence of its belief in that urgency by doing some of the things that they are asking other people to do. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) advises other people to economize, advises other people to save wherever they can, and points out the obvious and homely truth that a combination of many little savings will amount to a great deal. Far better than advice of that kind would be an example by the government itself, by the Minister of Finance and others, that the government believed in many little savings, and that it believed in the effect of the cumulative total of all the savings it undoubtedly could make at this time.
During this debate the Prime Minister and others on the government side have given no indication of their recognition of the disastrous effect of the inflation that has already been felt by those living on pensions and small fixed incomes. The Prime Minister compared prices as he found them in Washington and Ottawa. But one of the things the Prime Minister did not notice was one of the explanations which has been given to us for the present change in the balance between money spent by United States visitors in Canada and Canadian visitors in the United States, and the sudden increase in the amount spent by the people of Canada in the United States; that is the fact that the things the Canadian people like cost less in the United States. They are making use of the exemption and buying all they can when they visit that country. There is no hon. member in this house who has had occasion

The Address-Mr. Drew to go to the United States within the past year who does not know that most things that people buy in the way of clothes, shoes and the ordinary little things that help to make life more pleasant in the home are substantially cheaper in the United States than they are in Canada. Those are the things that go to make up the total cost of living, as well as the basic things that are included within the limited items embraced in our cost of living index.
Yet although for so many of those items the costs are less in the United States today, the average wages in that country are much higher. The proportionate relationship to the cost of those things that most people accept as the ordinary amenities of life today is, therefore, much greater for the people of Canada than merely the comparative figures between the cost in Canada and the cost in the United States actually demonstrate. For these reasons we need not only take the figures issued by the dominion bureau of statistics which show the cost of living in Canada as higher than that of the United States. We have the evidence of those people who are going to the United States and availing themselves of the exemption in order to buy goods cheaper there than they can buy them in Canada. If that is so-


Douglas Charles Abbott: They are bringing them in duty free.


George Alexander Drew: Certainly they are bringing them in duty free, and they are bringing them in duty free at the price they paid for them in the United States.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Is my hon. friend advocating the abolition of tariffs?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to hear the Minister of Finance speak on this subject, because he has given advice on so many occasions as to how inflation can be dealt with that I feel sure the members of this house would welcome further statements by him as to some new ways he has discovered for tackling this problem.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, I was just wondering whether my hon. freind advocated the abolition of tariffs.


George Alexander Drew: I do at least afford the Minister of Finance the belief that he wishes us to take his words seriously. I would point out to him it is a serious reflection upon his understanding of the subject we are discussing when he makes a comment of that kind. What I was comparing was the price of articles in the United States and in Canada. That has nothing whatever to do with tariffs. It has to do with the price at which people buy these articles in the two countries; it has to
[Mr. Drew.l
do with the fact that Canadians can buy some articles in the United States at lower prices than are charged for the same articles in Canada. That was exactly the subject the Prime Minister was discussing. He was not talking about tariffs; he was talking about comparative prices between the United States and Canada, and that is what I was talking about. Apparently the Minister of Finance did not listen to the Prime Minister the other day when he was speaking on this subject.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) is talking about articles on which there are no tariffs.


George Alexander Drew: Perhaps the Minister of Finance is a little more rested now than he was the other day. We would not have expected those impatient interruptions which we listened to had we not known that he had just arrived back from Paris and was extremely tired and a little irritable.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I did not interrupt once that day.


George Alexander Drew: The minister did not get up, but he spoke constantly without getting up.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, I just answerd questions, nothing else; not a single word.


George Alexander Drew: The Minister of Finance is the one who after all has the major responsibility for the financial affairs of the government and for many of its economic activities, and no doubt is consulted before decisions are made as to the way in which this problem will be tackled from time to time. The Minister of Finance is well aware that the cost of living in Canada has exceeded the cost of living in the United States, because he has had the advantage of advice received from the Bank of Canada, which has stated that to be the case.
I propose to deal with certain points raised at the opening of this debate, points which have not yet been met or dealt with by the government. I pointed out that since we were not going to have a budget, not even the baby budget which the press speculatively spoke about for a while, thinking that some opportunity would be afforded to remedy the mistakes of the government in their budget policy this year, the only way we could bring many subjects before the house was to put them forward as recommendations to the government. I expressed the hope that the absence of any reference in the speech from the throne to an adjustment of veterans pensions did not mean that the government was closing the door to a reconsideration of that subject. I am sure that hon. members generally will welcome the statement made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. OCTOBER 19, 1951
Lapointe) that the government is reconsidering this subject. Hon. members, however, would have welcomed much more a statement as to what the government is actually going to do. The minister was not prepared to indicate to us whether there is to be an overall adjustment of pensions in keeping with the cost of living, or whether this is simply to be a modification of the earlier legislation adopted, to which so much objection has already been taken. However, the fact that the government has reconsidered its position -and quite obviously it did not intend to deal with this or there would have been a reference to it in the speech from the throne -on the question of veterans pensions will be welcomed by hon. members. They, I know, hope that this legislation will be brought down at an early date so that full consideration may be given to it and an opportunity afforded to fully explore the effectiveness of the new legislation with which we will be called upon to deal.
Then another point I brought forward was that there should be a committee on defence expenditures. I am not going to deal at any length with the speech made this afternoon, which appeared to be a little behind the actual movement of events. The fact is there is reason to hope that we are going to have a committee on defence expenditures. Such a committee is something for which we have been pressing for a considerable time. If that committee is set up, as I hope it will be and as the Prime Minister indicated it certainly would be at the next session and possibly at this, then we shall have achieved a great deal by our continued insistence upon the setting up of that committee.
I wish to point out that such a committee has no resemblance to the muzzled public accounts committee which has been denied the opportunity really to examine the business of this house and of this government.


Mr. Robinson:: You were a member and you were not there.


George Alexander Drew: I was a member of the public accounts committee, and I know exactly just how much the public accounts committee is permitted to examine. When the hon. member who spoke this afternoon quoted with a pious declaration of approval what the public accounts committee had said, he omitted to state that it was a majority report and that under the rules which apply to that committee no minority report is permitted. The fact is the public accounts committee has been completely muzzled in regard to any effective examination of the current state of our defence affairs. When it was decided that the officials and officers of the Department
The Address-Mr. Drew of National Defence were not to be permitted to give any information after March 31, 1950, I believed that there were other activities which could be more usefully pursued than delving into ancient history of that kind at that particular time. I can assure the hon. member, however, that if and when this other committee is set up he will have no reason to complain of my attendance at that committee. I can only interpolate that at a time last year when we did succeed in obtaining some information, before the clamps were put on, the hon. member who seems to object to my absence this year seemed to object very much to my persistence on the earlier occasion, or even to my presence, for that matter. However, we will now look forward to the setting up of this committee on defence expenditures. I look forward to it both for what it can accomplish and for the evidence it does furnish that little by little we are returning here in Canada to parliamentary responsibility.
Another point that I raised was in regard to housing. I again pointed out that it would not be possible for us, under the device that has been employed to limit debate, to introduce a motion on that subject, but that I hoped the restrictions would be removed and the green light given to a real housing program in thi9 country. Since then we have had a statement by the minister responsible for housing, but it falls far short of providing the kind of program that will produce the houses needed for the rapidly accelerating demands of the people of this country as well as the new people who are being invited into Canada by this government and are now coming in increasing numbers.
Then, also, I put forward the request that the government should indicate, and I expressed the hope that the Prime Minister would so indicate that afternoon, that it would introduce legislation to repeal the 25 per cent increase in the sales tax, the excise tax on electrical and other household equipment, and other things that really are necessities in this modern life of ours. The Prime Minister has given no such assurance, and there is no indication that the government has any thought of removing those unnecessary and extremely inflationary taxes.
I also urged that the Prime Minister indicate that the government would take steps to remove the unnecessarily severe restrictions on credit, and in that way release some of the purchasing power of the people to buy those things which are available to people who want them, if the appropriate credit arrangements can be made. We have had

The Address-Mr. Drew no assurance in that respect and, on the contrary, have every reason to believe that no such plans are contemplated by the government at this time.
Then I repeated my request that the government agree to the appointment of a committee or commission to inquire into the cost and organization of government. In doing so I repeated a request which has been made many times before. On this occasion, however, I did it with hope based upon the discovery by the Minister of Finance that many small savings sometimes add up to substantial savings, and in the belief that an inquiry of that kind might well produce very profitable results for the government and people of Canada. We have had no indication that the government has been willing to change its views in that respect.
In all the discussion that has taken place, and in all the answers given, there has not been the slightest evidence that the government recognizes that, by a combination of inflation to which it has contributed, by restrictions and by excessive taxes it has imposed, many people in Canada today face an extremely disastrous situation. When I use the word "disastrous" I am reminded that the word "calamity" has been employed by the Prime Minister to describe just such a situation as that which we now face. For those reasons I would still hope the government might give some indication that it is prepared to recognize the seriousness of the situation and to take some of those steps which definitely would help in tackling the whole problem of inflation.
I wish now to deal with the subamendment. In presenting the amendment to the motion for the adoption of the address in reply to the speech from the throne I introduced, on behalf of the party with which I am associated, a motion which is in positive rather than negative form. Just before moving the amendment I said this:
So often members say, "Oh, I would have voted for that amendment if there had not been included in it a number of details with which I do not agree, although I agree with the main purpose of the motion." The motion I am about to move leaves no such possibility, and I hope that the members will vote upon it recognizing that fact. I hope that the members of all parties in this house who believe that something effective should be done will support the motion. It carefully avoids all other controversial issues, and asks the members for a vote on no other question than whether or not the government will now tackle the problem of inflation in a way which will assure the general welfare and security of all Canadians.
Then I introduced a motion which dealt only with that one subject. Instead of expressing regret, instead of expressing censure, the amendment was in these words:
We respectfully represent to Your Excellency that in the opinion of this house adequate steps should be taken to combat inflation and deal effectively with the high cost of living.
That amendment was introduced so every member in the house who has found in his own constituency a demand for action to deal with inflation and the high cost of living could vote for it, without at the same time challenging the government, which in the ordinary course of events he may support. The Prime Minister made the statement that he left it to Mr. Speaker to decide whether this was a want of confidence motion, and suggested that if it was not, then it might not be in order. May I say at this point that that is indeed a strange proposition in procedure, because I have yet to find any suggestion that a positive motion is not always just as much in order as a negative motion. Motions are made from time to time, and accepted by the government, which ask for amendments to legislation or resolutions, and where additions are made enlarging such motions or legislations.
The question whether this is or is not a motion of want of confidence is surely one of interpretation which can be settled by the member who moved it, when he says that in this case it is not to be regarded as a want of confidence motion but as an opportunity for members of the House of Commons who have heard the views of people in their constituencies to say to the government, "We want action now. Whatever action is taken, we want it taken without any further delay". That has been done on other occasions, and I believe it can be done on this one with advantage to the people of Canada.
On earlier occasions, moving amendments to the motion for the adoption of the address in reply, invariably we have included a number of subjects. If we had been drafting a similar amendment in this instance we would have included these various subjects to which I have referred today, and would have put each one of them in the amendment. We did not do so because, as I said, it is carefully drawn to introduce no subject other than this one question: Do you ask the government at this time to take action to deal with inflation, without further delay? Because it is drawn in that way, and because it deals effectively with the one question we have put forward, then it is not my intention to agree to support anything that enlarges or widens the amendment itself.

There are, however, other reasons why I would take that position, and with which I should like to deal at this time. We have made it clear that we believe there are a number of subjects that should be before the House of Commons. We have made it clear that we think there are a number of ways in which inflation can be tackled. We have pointed them out, as we have pointed them out on other occasions. First, reduce the cost of government. Second, increase production in every way possible by removing the restrictions that are today limiting production. There should be a real building program that will give the people of this country the houses they need. We should carry forward development programs that will employ the resources of this country. We should do those other things that have been suggested as ways of tackling this problem. Yes, we should adopt such selective controls as are necessary to hold down the prices of the particular materials or supplies which the government is setting aside for defence purposes. We have pointed out that when the government suddenly steps in to buy large quantities of any kind, immediate and heavy inflationary pressures exert themselves on the remainder. We have said that flexible and selective controls should be applied to those particular things.
We have been told that selective controls are not possible. We have been told by the Minister of Finance over the radio and elsewhere that you must either have controls over everything or not at all. The Minister of Finance has a short memory because he should remember a publication issued by this government in 1945 entitled "Canada at War, a Recapitulation". Issue No. 45 of 1945 stated:
For the first two years the board followed a policy of selected controls.
Having made that statement, the book issued by the government went on to extol the virtues of that system and what it had achieved. It should be recalled that this government expressed its own faith in selective controls by the fact that during the first two years and more of the war they were applied only to six different types of requirements. We have been told by the government itself that that worked well and effectively until the all-out demands of war called for a wider system of control.
Those are the kind of controls that we have been urging, that we still urge. We do believe that if iit is competent for the government to say how much of any particular requirement in the way of raw materials or
The Address-Mr. Drew otherwise shall be set aside for defence purposes, it is equally competent for the government to say that in relation to what remains the price shall not rise above a certain point until it can be demonstrated that it should do so in the interests of the country and national defence. That is a different thing from wrapping around the business of this country at this time rigid and over-all controls. Nowhere at any time in anything I have said in this house or outside can my words be interpreted as seeking the application of controls of that kind at this time.
The subamendment raises the question of price controls. When we examine what is meant by the subamendment it becomes necessary to examine the explanation that has been given, to examine what those who moved that subamendment really meant by the terms they used. The rules of this house make it necessary to draft motions, amendments and subamendments in a strict form which often limits the use of the words to the point where the motion, amendment or subamendment becomes little more than a peg upon which to hang an explanation which describes what is actually intended.
On earlier occasions we have explained what we meant, and have pointed out what we thought should be done to deal with inflation. We expected and we do expect those explanations to be taken as our statement of what our earlier amendments have meant, just as we expect our statements to be taken now as to what we mean by the amendment we have presented. It is necessary in the same way to examine the explanation that has been given of the subamendment.
To an extent that has certainly not been true since I came into this House of Commons the members of the party which has put forward the subamendment have made it perfectly clear that what they are asking for are over-all and rigid controls such as constitute part of their idea of socialist planning for the country. That emerges from the repeated criticism of free enterprise and the capitalist system which has appeared in the discussions of these past two days. It may be all very well for some of those hon. members who have made these statements to say that they are on record with regard to their position, but the fact is that they have changed greatly. When they suggest inconsistency in the position we have taken in regard to controls I must say that it does provide a real source of amusement to find people who have been so inconsistent worried about the alleged inconsistency of others.
We have had the representatives of the socialist party talking in this house as though

The Address-Mr. Drew they were the exponents of free enterprise, completely forgetting the dogma of the Regina manifesto. We have heard assurances in this house that they were not asking for the imposition of continuing controls. It seems that something has happened, that something has changed. I think something has changed. I think the change is a return to the Regina manifesto and a desire to implement a plan of over-all controls such as was contemplated by that manifesto when it was originally prepared. Let us go back to that manifesto and see how remarkable the statements are. Having regard to the evils of the present system the manifesto says:
We believe that these evils can be removed only in a planned and- socialized economy in which our natural resources and the principal means of production and distribution are owned, controlled and operated by the people.
The whole manifesto makes it clear that when they say "owned, controlled and operated by the people" they mean, owned, controlled and operated by the state. Then later on the same page we find these words: What we seek is a proper collective organization of our economic resources such as will make possible a much greater degree of leisure and a much richer individual life for every citizen.
Those are attractive words. Those are words which bear a surprising similarity to certain words in another manifesto which was issued nearly a hundred years ago. Those words set out a belief in a strictly planned and regimented economy.
On September 4 of this year an extremely important speech was made by the president of the American Federation of Labor, Mr. William Green, speaking on Labour day at the Toronto exhibition. In that speech he stated unreservedly that the one hope for freedom of organized labour is the free enterprise system. He came out unreservedly, as the head of one of the great labour organizations on this continent, in support of free enterprise as the way in which organized labour could best assure its rights in the years ahead. Then he used words which I should like to read: Let us sink our tiny differences and stand together for the free enterprise system, which means freedom for labour to organize and for the rights of employers. Let us dwell on the bonds that hold us together rather than the barriers which divide us.
That was a great speech on an important occasion by a great labour leader. He came out unreservedly for free enterprise as the system under which labour itself could best reach the objectives which it seeks to attain. His speech immediately came under criticism by the officials of the socialist party, and they took occasion to criticize the assertion that CMr. Drew.]

labour would best attain its ends under the free enterprise system. No matter what may have been said in the past about the acceptance of that system with certain modifications, we have heard some criticism of the free enterprise system in this house during the present session. Let me make it perfectly clear that, along with the other methods that we have put forward, we believe that where pressures are creating inflationary rises in certain materials going into defence production, it is the duty of the government to take the steps that are necessary to hold down the prices of those materials that remain. We believe if that is done it will present the chain reaction that flows from sudden increases in prices of these particular materials.
But we will certainly have no part or parcel of the socialist idea of over-all controls wrapped around our economy. We will have nothing to do with it at any time. We wish to make it abundantly clear that when the members of the socialist party criticize us for having advocated the abolition of controls at the time we were going forward into what appeared to be a normal period of increasing peace and security, they are only doing so because they wanted indefinitely to continue controls such as have always been a part of the planned economy they advocate. Certainly we advocated the withdrawal of controls. The point I have sought to make, and that I make now, is that we want to see controls removed as soon as possible. We have controls today. We have the widest possible type of controls. We have undefined controls under emergency legislation which the government obtained by a majority vote in this house last spring. We have controls, and the sooner we adopt such measures as will counterbalance the effect of these controls on supplies at the source, the closer we will be to the day when we can again remove all controls.
There is one way and one way alone to end inflation. That is by production; but there are other steps that must be taken before that is achieved. It has been said, and properly so, that neither price controls nor any other controls can end the threat of inflation. That is true. It may also be said that no battle and no war was ever won by defence fortifications, and that has been abundantly proved. The Maginot line became a state of mind; and while I recognize-and I say this with the utmost sincerity-the belief that the socialist members of this house have in the effectiveness of over-all controls in a planned economy, I suggest that controls of that kind are simply the application of the Maginot mind to our economic system. Instead of looking on defence measures or protective measures simply as

temporary devices behind which the forces of a free economy can be marshalled to move forward into greater periods of production in the years ahead, they regard them as an end in themselves. Certainly defence lines are necessary. Every man who has seen active service knows there are occasions when only the erection of earthworks, or trenches in depth, or barriers of some kind, will hold the enemy back while forces are mustered who can move forward at the time when victory is possible. The same holds true of the economic struggle in which we are engaged. It may become necessary to take defensive measures which are not desirable in themselves and which should be removed as soon as possible, but these defensive measures may become necessary just as earthworks or other defences become necessary in battle. Behind these temporary defences let us build up our forces; behind these defences let us combine production for civil and military requirements, and when the time comes once again there can be the free play of prices which in the end is the one hope of lower prices with better goods to the people of this or any other country.
It is in that light, and that light alone, that we have put forward our arguments with regard to selective controls of a flexible nature, selective controls which on earlier occasions were extolled by this government that now seems to be so concerned about them. It is for the reasons I have put forward that we seek a straight vote on the motion we have placed before the house. Will the members who have come back from their constituencies with information from their people say to this government on a straight request of this kind:	We want
action now; we want action to hold down the cost of living and to stop the spiral of inflation? That is what we have asked that the members of this house should vote upon; and having eliminated from our motion any amplifying references we do not believe it appropriate that we should accept a rewrit-, ing of that motion at this time.
I should like to say just a word or two with respect to the government's position in this matter. The government is not very clear as to just what it does mean. When it obtained these immense emergency powers last spring it said it was obtaining them because it had now become necessary to be ready to introduce price controls if the necessity should arise. They obtained this wide legislation on that assurance, and if they did not intend to exercise these wide powers for the restraint of prices by some device then they had no right to obtain such powers at all from this house. But the difficult thing 94699-15
The Address-Mr. Drew to understand is why this government has changed its opinion so much. Back in 1945 the present Prime Minister had this to say, as reported in Hansard of November 23, 1945, at page 2452:
The immediate price increases resulting from the hungry market and the removal of subsidies on such key commodities as milk, bread, butter, cotton textiles, would accumulate rapidly as workers sought to protect themselves through wage increases, as producers raised their prices in response to rising wages and material costs, as buyers scrambled for goods and shelter to protect their individual needs, and as the speculative tendency gained momentum. It would be difficult to say how high the cost of living would go before the inevitable collapse. At first, higher prices in the United States and in other countries would stimulate increases here. Later perhaps price levels of the United States, if that country maintained some measure of control, might provide a ceiling.
Nevertheless it seems to me clear that the increase in the Canadian cost of living before the recession set in would be very substantial, and the consequences of this would appear to be serious. The weaker producer groups in the community would be unable to increase their incomes to compensate for the higher cost of living.
May I repeat that sentence:
The weaker producer groups in the community would be unable to increase their incomes to compensate for the higher cost of living. Savings of the whole Canadian people would depreciate. The returned service man would get poor value for his gratuity and re-establishment grant. Dependents of those fighting men who, unfortunately, did not return, would face serious privations. Pensioners and others who have made provision for their old age, through life insurance or other means, would find that that provision would be imperilled and their security materially lessened.
Then let me refer to the statements that have been made to the effect that controls which would hold down prices of supplies where the government is obtaining them for defence production-and those are the only supplies I am referring to-would limit production. May I recall this speech of the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) as reported in Hansard of March 27, 1947, at page 1813:
The primary question that was asked of me was whether controls had hampered production. I can conscientiously say that since I have been associated with controls, which is from their inception, controls have never been permitted to hamper production. In fact, controls at the moment are greatly stimulating production in several important lines.
As recently as this spring the Minister of Defence Production reiterated his statement that controls of that kind did not limit production. Then we come to the Minister of Finance, who is reported in Hansard of April 1, 1947, at page 1938 as follows:
. . . the government seeks an extension of its powers to control these prices, supplies and rentals for one reason and one reason only, namely, to continue to give the ordinary people of this country, the farmers, the fishermen and the workers in the cities and towns, a fair break in the transition period. During the war our policy was to prevent

The Address-Mr. Drew inflation and to provide and enforce a fair distribution of goods which were in short supply. Prices were held under a pretty rigid price ceiling; but that policy worked. We are more than ever convinced that this over-all price ceiling policy was the only policy which could have worked successfully.
I think the whole course of events in this modern world changed in June of last year when the attack on Korea once more presented us with a new period of suddenly expanded defence production. The moment that attack came, then it was necessary to recognize that once more we were in a transition period and that once again we must take whatever steps were called for to protect the people of this country from the impact of events of that kind.
I have presented to this house a motion which I am satisfied every hon. member can conscientiously vote for, if he has come back to this house with the belief that the people in his own constituency want immediate action to deal with the cost of living. But to recall the famous words of a cartoonist who was more popular in the first world war than in the last one, may I suggest that the members of this house say to this government at this time; With your knowledge and experience- which you do not place at too low a level, in your own estimation-and with the experts you have to assist you, if you know of "a better 'ole", go to it. If you know of a better way to deal with this problem, let us know what it is.
In the speech from the throne we were told that the government was going to do what was necessary to deal with the cost of living. What we ask now is that the government do something to deal with it. The government has the experts. The government is in a position to call together representatives of labour, of farm groups, of the banks, of the financial houses, of the commercial enterprises, of every activity in this country and to say to them: We are confronted with a situation which, to use the word of the Prime Minister, is a calamity. How are we going to deal most successfully with this calamity? We are prepared to hear your advice and to the extent that you convince us, to act upon it. The situation is serious. Many people in this country are in a most critical position today with regard to meeting the bare necessities of life. It is true that there is a tremendous amount of money in this country today, as was stated yesterday by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, but the trouble is that at the present time that money is being channelled off into more and more limited areas. If something is not done to deal with the inflation with which we are now confronted, and to deal with it
[Mr. Drew.}
effectively, those who have no way of meeting this threat, those who have no way of riding the tide of inflation-and that is the majority of Canadian people-will find their actual buying power decreasing while wealth increases in the hands of those who are in a strategic position to take advantage of inflation itself. That would bring to this country discontent, distrust and dissatisfaction at a time when we should be seeking co-operation in every possible way we can. That would sow the seeds of distrust and disharmony at a time when we should be following and listening to the wise words of Mr. William Green, to whose speech I referred. I repeat his words:
Let us sink our tiny differences and stand together for the free enterprise system, which means freedom for labour to organize and for the rights of employers. Let us dwell on the bonds that hold us together rather than the barriers which divide us.
On that note I close these remarks and express the hope that the members of this house, without any extension of the motion, will vote for that motion which asks the government to act now in a spirit of co-operation so that together, as representatives of the people of Canada, we may persuade the government to take action which is greatly needed in the interests of all Canadians at this hour.


Mr. J. J. Smith (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I take part in this debate in the hope that I might add something to it. I am under a considerable handicap since I have a bad cold, but it is mostly in my throat and I hope it will be possible for me to speak loudly enough for all those wishing to hear me to do so. I should like to join with those who congratulated the mover (Mr. Cauchon) and seconder. (Mr. Simmons) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. It was not my good fortune to be here when those gentlemen performed their tasks, but I have heard both of them in action before and I am quite sure that the kind remarks that have been directed towards them were well deserved.
I do not know whether it is my misfortune or privilege to follow the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). However, that is the way it happens. I suppose that in doing so I may be permitted to refer to some of the statements he made. He suggested that the government should cut down on non-defence expenditures. I am going to suggest to the government that if they pay heed to the leader of the opposition and cut down on expenditures such as public works, they should commence in the constituencies represented by Tories. I agreed with him when he suggested that the one way to curb inflation is to increase production. Yesterday the

hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) pointed out that Canada was increasing her production and was going to continue to do so to a very great extent. As yet I have not heard that statement challenged.
The leader of the official opposition has called upon all members to support the Conservative motion. He also said there was no intention of rewriting it. I have not heard of anyone who wants him to rewrite it. Let us see what the motion says. It is found on page 32 of Hansard and reads:
We respectfully represent to Your Excellency that in the opinion of this house adequate steps should be taken to combat inflation and deal effectively with the high cost of living.
If that was not a motion of non-confidence I believe even the Prime Minister could vote for it. There is nothing in it.
To me, Mr. Speaker, one of the most interesting things in the speech from the throne is the mention of the implementation of the Turgeon report on rail transportation. To the people in western Canada that is important. I am quite sure 1 am not the first member from western Canada who has advocated that, nor am I the first member from my constituency to do so. We in western Canada buy our implements and other products from central Canada, while much of our produce is shipped to eastern Canada. However, we buy our machinery and automobiles f.o.b. the point of manufacture. We must pay the freight. The producer of grain in western Canada pays the freight on the grain to the head of the lakes. We believe there should be an equalization of those freight rates. We believe the $7 million subsidy recommended by the commission would be a help to the railways to pay for that dead haul over northern Ontario, and would have a beneficial effect.
Much has been said, Mr. Speaker, about price controls. I am glad to note that the Progressive Conservative party has abandoned its call for price controls. I recall speaking to one of my constituents shortly before I left. The newspapers in our section of the country were forecasting a stormy debate and demands by the C.C.F. and Conservative parties for price controls. They have not been entirely correct. This gentleman came to me and asked me if I thought the newspapers were correct. He was not a supporter of mine, but was a Conservative. He said he hoped that the Conservatives would stop demanding price controls. He reminded me of an address he had heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) deliver over the radio. I did not hear it, but this gentleman told me he thought it was very good. The address had reminded him and a lot of Canadians of things they had forgotten.
94699-15J
The Address-Mr. J. J. Smith
There are a few lines of that address which I should like to put on the record. The minister said:
Do you remember that you were not allowed to build anything beyond the simplest sort of shelter without getting a permit from Ottawa? Do you remember that no one could open a new store or start a new bakery or slaughter livestock for sale without getting a licence from the prices board and that we had to stop all exports of livestock to the United States? Do you remember that you could not buy a car, a stove or a new tire unless you proved a dire emergency and got a government permit? Do you remember having to keep track of a great variety of tickets and coupons in order to get 30 per cent less sugar than you now use, and only enough gasoline to drive about 100 miles a month? Do you remember that your wages and salaries were frozen and that you could not quit your job or take a new job without getting a permit from a government official?
I cannot persuade myself, Mr. Speaker, that a majority of the people in my constituency want to go back to a system of that kind. I am sure that in a state of emergency, were it to last but a short time, they would not mind; but recently the Prime Minister has said we will have this inflation with us as long as we have this defence program, and that we would likely have a defence program for at least a generation. Well, another generation is quite a long time to be getting permits from government officials to buy the things you need.
I should like to refer to a statement made- I do not know whether or not it was intentional-by the member for Souris (Mr. Ross). He was referring to the price of grain, and the return to the farmers in the United States and Canada. At page 131 of Hansard he said:
There was a difference of just $1 per bushel and that is much too great.


An hon. Member:: They may get more.


Mr. Ross (Souris) :: I think they will. However,
I would point out that the initial payment for this crop was reduced by 20 per cent over the initial payment of a year ago.
I do not think that is quite the fact. The initial price of wheat this year is the same as it was last year.


James Arthur Ross: On last year's crop.


John James Smith: The hon. member said it was 20 per cent lower this year than last year. If he wishes to take one date in October and the other in March, then he may be correct.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of the record, I did not check Hansard very closely. I said there was a reduction of 20 cents per bushel on the initial payment on last year's crop.


John James Smith: It is a mis-report; I am glad the member has explained it. I repeat that the initial payment on the price of wheat this year is the same as last year, namely, $1.40.

The Address-Mr. J. J. Smith


James Arthur Ross: It is $1.60.


John James Smith: Possibly the hon. member for Souris and I can get together privately. We have many private talks; we are on very good terms. We come from the south, and if necessary we will call in the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). Then I'm sure the hon. member will be convinced.


James Arthur Ross: And take his word for it.


John James Smith: Well, I have found it very good. I wish to speak for a few moments about the condition of the farmer in western Canada. Having said that the initial price of wheat has been $1.40 for the last two years, since 1946 western farmers have received approximately $1.80 a bushel basis Fort William. That is what they received last year, and my guess is that we will receive the same figure this year. As the hon. member for Souris says, we have had $1.60, but it is quite likely that there will be another 20 cents. I made that prediction in this house last March, and I think it will not be too far out. Some hon. member said that $1.80 is too low. Well, $1.80 is not too bad provided that the things we have to buy stay in line. The main thing in my opinion, so far as the farmer is concerned, is machinery. In my district it costs about as much to equip a section of land with the necessary machinery to farm it as it does to buy the farm, including the buildings. Therefore that is very important.
Are we going to ask for a higher price for wheat? I am not in favour of doing that, Mr. Speaker, because if we did we would be joining the labour force in asking for higher wages, and it would be like a dog chasing his tail; we would be getting no place. But we are interested in keeping the tools that we need to produce the wheat in line. As I have said, this year we will receive about $1.80 for wheat, which is about the same as we have received since 1946, but machinery has gone up considerably. In many cases it has almost doubled. I do not know whether that increase is justified. There are only two things that go into the cost of machinery or any article you wish to take, and they are labour and services. These have gone up almost double. Someone should look into this thing and see if that increase is necessary. It is true that the farmers of eastern and western Canada can buy machinery in the United States, since machinery is duty free.
I was very much interested yesterday in the remarks of the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) and what he had to say about the problem of monopolies, combines and cartels. I do not know whether a cartel exists in the machinery industry,

but I should like to know. It is fair for any hon. member representing a farming constituency to ask the government to make an investigation and find out. I do not know whether the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) can persuade the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) to cheek over this combines thing or not. I do not know whether it would work here, but I think it is fair for me to ask that an investigation be made.
Let us see what the hon. member for Coast-Capilano had to say yesterday. As reported at page 162 of Hansard he Said:
I learned a good deal this summer about combines, cartels and monopolies-indeed this has been a very beneficial summer for me-at the United Nations. If there is one country in the world which has tried to wipe out cartels, combines and business monopolies, it has been the United States of America-and this goes away back to Teddy Roosevelt's time.
The Americans have found that no matter how they attacked the problem of monopolies, combines and trusts in their own country, international cartels have to be attacked internationally. With that in mind they put forward a resolution before the United Nations to have an international commission which would deal internationally with cartels beyond the reach of any individual government. I, as the Canadian representative, was glad to second that resolution.
I have read that to the house to show that so far as machinery is concerned, if these things do exist within the machinery industry there is nothing that this government can do alone, but it certainly can do something in co-operation with the United States.
During this debate many comments have been made about the differences between prices in the United States and Canada. You can take many ranges of articles, and I should like to know when they were not much cheaper in the United States than here. I live only 33 miles from the international border. Since the middle 1920's I have crossed that border at least eight or ten times a year. On many occasions we have been tourists down there for forty-eight hours, which gave us the right to bring back many commodities. As I was driving home last summer I stopped in Minneapolis, and I found there were less bargains there at that time than at any previous time I had visited the United States. My wife made that remark, and she is a pretty canny shopper. We always went down there, and in the 1930's it paid us to go down and shop in the United States. Last year I found that although on many articles there was some difference, taking the whole range of goods such as clothing, tools and so on there is less difference today than there was in previous years.
I should like to speak for a minute or two on pensions. My remarks will be shorter

than they would have been because of the minister's announcement that legislation will be introduced at this session to deal with the increase in basic pensions. This summer I had the privilege of attending many Legion branch meetings. I found that at all those meetings the Legion boys were very fair. They discussed the committee that dealt with the pension last spring, and at all times they were very fair. They presented a brief to the government asking for an increase, which they got only in part. I think the Legion, if it might be called a pressure group, is one group in Canada that is definitely not radical. To substantiate that statement I would remind the house that less than a year ago-I believe it was last March-the Canadian Legion presented a brief to the government, and to most if not all members of parliament, in which they asked for conscription. The government turned down the brief, and told the Legion that at that time it was not in the best interest of the country. As far as I know there has never been a peep from any member of the Legion in Canada protesting against that decision. I mention that only to indicate that the Canadian Legion is a very fair organization.
Then may I refer briefly to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The C.B.C. is owned and, I understand, operated by the government. As a Canadian taxpayer, if called upon to do so I shall be pleased to pay taxes to give an increase to pensioners. On the other hand we are being taxed a considerable amount of money to keep the C.B.C. in operation; but unless some of those procommunist programs are cleaned out, then as a taxpayer I shall not be in favour of making any further donations by way of taxes to maintain the C.B.C. I wish the minister were in his seat, but I have no doubt he will have the opportunity to read what I say. Not long ago I listened to a program over the C.B.C. that, I suggest, was unfit for the ears of my children. If it was, then my mother made a sad mistake in bringing me up. I say that program was anti-religious and therefore pro-Russian. It is high time that stuff was cleaned out of the air, especially when the taxpayers' money is being used. This is a free country, and any anti-religious individual who wishes to speak may do so. That is just fine with me, so long as he pays for his own time. I do not want to pay for it through taxation.
A few days ago one of my colleagues from Quebec, the name of whose constituency I have some difficulty in pronouncing, suggested that western farmers were compelling some easterners to eat horse meat. I understand it was eaten in Belgium during the war,
The Address-Mr. J. J. Smith but I was not aware that the western farmers of Canada had forced them to do so. Indeed, I think any suggestion of the kind would be incorrect. The same member also called upon the government to restrict the export of meat to the United States. Let me say to the hon. member and, in a kindly way, to the government, that if it does decide to restrict farmers to a greater extent by way of controls, and at the same time not to control wages and profits, there is quite likely to be a row in Liberal ranks.
I do not wish to take further time of the house, Mr. Speaker. There are many problems in my constituency, but they are purely local. I have found in the past that it is not necessary to discuss such matters in the house, but that it is more satisfactory to go to the appropriate minister and have them ironed out. I see no reason why I should follow a different course at this session.
I believe I have said enough to indicate clearly how I shall vote. Definitely I shall oppose the amendment.


Mr. Hees:: Why?


John James Smith: Because
there is nothing in it-other than a motion of want of confidence.


George Harris Hees: You do not want action?


John James Smith: I believe in a man exercising his franchise; but when I vote for something I want to have something to vote for.
Then, as I said before, so far as the subamendment is concerned, I cannot convince myself that the people in my constituency will want to go back to a controlled set-up, in which we have to get permits from some government agency even if we want only a few gallons of gasoline, especially if it may last for a generation.


Mr. G. M. Murray (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to follow an hon. member from western Canada in this debate and to say also how much we appreciated the speeches of the mover (Mr. Cauchon) and the seconder (Mr. Simmons) of the address in reply. I would refer particularly to the remarks of the seconder, who is my desk-mate, and who comes from the Yukon and Mackenzie river area. He has a most pleasing personality, and a most efficient way of looking after the interests of his constituents and serving them in the House of Commons.
I was pleased to hear the announcement this afternoon respecting veterans pensions, following the very strong representations from certain veterans from British Columbia, the Yukon and other parts of western Canada.

The Address-Mr. G. M. Murray We are delighted the government has made the decision to give a better deal to the veterans in this country.
Up in this corner of the house we are not altogether forgotten. Perhaps we are a modest outfit, those of us who sit here on the back benches, but from time to time we do produce results. Perhaps this would be the appropriate occasion to refer to the fact that one of our number has gone forth to meet the forces of unrighteousness in Ontario. We extend to him our good wishes in the gallant struggle he is making to re-establish the Liberal party in Ontario.
We wish well another member of the house, one from Quebec, one who sat over here in the corner and who is now leading the Liberal party in that province. Precedent has been set. The premier of Nova Scotia came from the House of Commons, and I have no doubt that the rump will do its part to provide premiers for all the provinces, should vacancies occur.
May I compliment the new members who have been elected to the House of Commons. The speeches they have delivered have been of a high order, and I feel sure the house will be strengthened from the new blood added. Of course at the moment they are unfortunate in being in the opposition. However, anyone who follows history in Canada must know that sudden changes take place from time to time, and that on occasions those who have appeared to be strongly entrenched have had changes in fortune. I remember being around the city of Ottawa away back in 1911, when there was an overwhelming majority in the government benches under the leadership of Canada's great statesman, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. At that time it was commonplace to hear people say that the then leader of the opposition lacked the quality of leadership, that he lacked genius, that he lacked eloquence. In short it was said that he was stuffy, an ordinary man. They were referring to Sir Robert Borden. It must have been most surprising to them after the election of 1911 when this man, Sir Robert Borden, who had been regarded as an example of mediocrity by so many people prior to the election, suddenly blossomed out as one of the great statesmen of the empire, and contributed in no small measure to the fortunes of Canada and of the whole empire during that period of time. All we sometimes need is the mantle of authority and the right background, as well as to have the right friends, and there you are. I urge the newcomers to the house to be of good cheer, to not despair. Undoubtedly their day will come. They should be not weary in well doing.
[Mr. Murray (Cariboo) .1

The Address-Mr. G. M. Murray have built too much within the cities and have neglected to develop the great valleys that lie outside. No wealth is made on Sparks street, St. James street, or Bloor street. A lot is spent there.


Mr. Sinnott:: Or Bay street.


George Matheson Murray: Or Bay street. The economy of the country has been under too much dictation from these great urban centres. Right in Ottawa young people in the civil service and so on who are enjoying good salaries, not large but at least regular, cluster around the centre of the city. They must live in apartments. They must not depart from the paved streets. I suggest that we could start right here and disperse the population to some extent. Suburbs could be established where people could have half an acre of land, a garden and breathing space. There was a day when it was not a disgrace for a woman to milk a Jersey cow and provide a little new wealth in that way. Today, however, we must buy such things out of tin cans, and if we buy milk from the commercial dairies the prices are very high. They are bound to be high, and they will not be any lower until we pay more attention to the development of the rural sections of this country, our natural resources and more especially our farming resources.
The hon. member for Yukon-Mackenzie River referred to transportation and the need for the extension of airways through the northern part of the country. I think that is most essential. In working out our plan of defence of the country I hope that young pilots may be developed in large numbers to man aircraft for purposes of either war or peace. During the recess I covered a large area of this country by air. I visited my friends at Whitehorse and at other places along the way. I travelled some 4,000 miles by air, flying by day and resting at night at flourishing mining camps or industrial centres scattered through the wilderness between Hudson bay, Dawson city, Yukon, and Kitimat on the Pacific coast. Wherever we stopped there were payrolls. Men were working mining gold, silver, copper or lead. I spent some time at the uranium mine and the new city being built there. It is not served by a highway or railway. It has an airfield and our plane was the first commercial plane to land there. We saw thousands of men at work in the area we covered. They were profitably employed. Nobody was complaining about high prices, and there was a flourishing condition of affairs where the natural wealth of this country was being extracted from the soil and pumped into the economy of Canada. We went to Fort McMurray and saw the vast oil sands there, which have not yet been tapped. We are told


by technical men that these oil sands contain the greatest reserve of oil existing in the world. After that we went to Redwater and other places where natural gas and oil are being extracted from the earth. Why should we worry about Iran when we have this vast potential supply of oil right in the back yard of Canada?
We need a railway running north from Prince George. When I was here last we had three trains a week on the Canadian National Railway lines between Prince Rupert and Jasper. So great has been the industrial development along that line, in the mills and other industries, that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier)-and he can tell you this himself-had to put on a train a day each way in order to accommodate the tonnage which is originating very largely in my own riding and in that so well represented by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite). In that area the Canadian National Railways was regarded for many years as a liability. There were only three trains a week and some of them were not very well occupied. However, such development is going on that it is necessary to institute additional service.
It is not so long ago that the main line of the Canadian National Railways was consid-' ered to run from Vancouver to Edmonton. Today the section of the Canadian National Railways that promises to pay better is that from Prince Rupert to Edmonton. We need an extension of the railway north from Prince George into the Peace river country to take care of that region, which has already greatly developed. We also need a railway from Hines Creek westward into the Peace river country. More than all other transportation facilities, we need a railway to link us with the northern frontiers of this continent by way of northern British Columbia, the Yukon and Alaska. Rhodes saw very far into the future. He saw the necessity for the development of the black continent.
Who is today pointing into the future here? We do not need to see into the future to know the defence emergency exists right now which necessitates the building of a railway from here up into Alaska. At the time that I speak of, the world was more or less at peace and it was thought that provision should be made for what might happen in the far distant future. Poised on the other side of the Pacific are some millions of armed men who are at war with us. We may call it a cold war or we may call it a local affair in Korea. But L am here to tell you, through my experience from travelling in Asia and from having met war lords and others on the other side of the Pacific, that the white race are in for fifty years of it, not for a

few months or a few years. I will give you an estimate of fifty years before peace will ever be established in the Pacific. With every month that passes new battalions and armies are being raised in China, Russia, Mongolia and those other places. They are poised over there ready to attack you when the opportunity offers.
I am not making a sensational statement because I made that statement once before the last war and said there was a grave danger of the Japanese coming over and attacking us and placing armies upon American soil. But that thought was laughed at. I even went to the trouble of getting out a book on the subject; but the number of readers found for it hardly paid for the ink. Some day I am going to sell it as a rare edition because it gave warning in good time of the Japanese menace, and the Japanese menace is still with us. There is a lull. But where old Buddha sits over there with his arms folded, time is not of the essence as it is with us. They are not in a hurry. They will take it easy. Not so long ago we had the Prime Minister of Pakistan walking up this carpet, and speaking with us, and foregathering with Mr. Speaker. Who could have thought that an assassin's bullet would have brought him down within a few short weeks? The world has been narrowed down. The things that happen in Asia are now of local interest to us, as are the things that happen in Africa. I say if we are going to be strong in Korea, that is all very well; it is also all very well to be strong in western Europe. But to be strong right here in Canada is more important than anything else. I hold in my hand a book which was written by Richmond P. Hobson, entitled "Grass beyond the Mountains" published by Lippincott. It is a book setting forth the agricultural resources of this country around Vanderhoof, the ranching possibilities and so on. It is also a best seller. Mr. Hobson was the son of the late Admiral Hobson of the United States navy, who accepted the surrender of the Spanish fleet along with Dewey at Manila. He is a young American who came up into that country and took up some of this land which can be bought very cheaply. He has a well organized and successful ranch, something that looks as though it might have come out of Hollywood, and which he carved out of this country down south of Vanderhoof, starting with a small investment. There are literally millions of acres of such land from Vanderhoof north waiting for people to take them. Let us send the soldiers to Europe, but let us go and bring some of these Europeans over here and put them down on that land.
The Address-Mr. Blackmore
If I have any condemnation to offer of this government today, it is that they are not making it definite that immigrants coming into this country go to the natural industries and keep out of the cities. It is not in our interests to bring immigrants to Canada, allow them to infest the cities and build up populations that are already too large. We do not need more jewelers, milliners or people to do needlework and so on. We need people on the dairy land, on the farm land and in the timber lands of this country. I say that we should start now to bring about a mass movement of population into these vacant valleys of the north. Extend the highways and these other transportation systems, the railways and airways, as the hon. member for Yukon-Mackenzie River (Mr. Simmons) has pleaded with you to do. Let us do that; and let us build this railway to Alaska. Let it not be said many years from now that we scuttled Alaska; and let us not allow the United States of America to scuttle Alaska.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, up to the present time no concrete, workable suggestion has been presented for dealing with the present high price structure. The Conservatives offer no new suggestion at all. All their ideas have been tried. The government in power seems to think they will not work. The C.C.F. proposes controls and subsidies. The main tasks that they would face would be, first, where to get the money from; second, how to maintain adequate motivation to produce; and third, how to avoid loss of freedom from regimentation.
It will be my purpose, if I have sufficient time, to attempt to give at least one suggestion whereby we might possibly find the way out of the difficulties which confront us. As reported at page 42 of Hansard, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said:
We are not all agreed as to what are the best methods of meeting it. I am sure that all of us will be glad to hear from other hon. members what their suggestions are, and I feel sure that their suggestions will be made in the same objective spirit in which I have tried to make clear the government's position.
I hope the Prime Minister will prove by his acts that he meant every syllable of every word that he uttered. Up to the present time he has not shown much of a disposition to listen attentively to the suggestions that Social Crediters have made. But he will find, before it is too late, I hope, that the Social Crediters were right all along, only he had not grown enough to be able to see it.
Social Credit principles, appropriately applied, offer the only possible means of solving the dangerous problems of our times. How might we summarize those problems?
234

The Address-Mr. Blackmore We might do so as follows:	First, how can
men assure adequate markets for the production of this age of potential abundance, this age of increasing use of machines, technological skills and solar power? Second, how can men ensure adequate prices, stable, and at the same time stimulating to both producers and consumers? Third, how can men, first, bring into optimum use the productive resources of all countries and, second, enable all peoples equitably to partake of the good things the world's resources can produce? Fourth, how can men provide for the preservation of order, while men discover, agree upon and apply principles that can bring about endurable and enduring solutions to the three problems I have enumerated?
Those problems may sound simple but they are just anything but simple. What right now has us on the very verge of absolute destruction in this world is that men cannot agree as to how to answer those questions. No one except Social Crediters can offer a suggestion as to how they might be solved.
Now, some of the particulars, parochial maybe we can call them, involved in these general considerations are such questions as: How are we to safely bring down the prices of all commodities without having them go down too fast and too far, thereby causing disastrous and discouraging losses or even a depression? Second, if we do not or cannot bring down prices far enough, how are we to bring up the incomes of pensioners and others to alleviate the painful deprivation now being suffered by far too many of our people? Third, how can we establish, finance and maintain a Canadian Marshall aid plan to assure ourselves of the British and other European markets, while at the same time providing much needed aid to Canada's Atlantic pact associates? Each of these problems has to be solved if we are going to be on anything like a stable foundation.
Most men of intelligence and good will could rather hopefully approach these problems if they could have available to them the money they require, especially United States and Canadian dollars. Social Credit proposes to attack the economic problems of our day exactly from the point of view of money, particularly where and how the money can come from which is necessary to the adequate production and equitable distribution of the goods and services which the resources available to mankind now render it possible for man to produce.
Social Credit proposals are fundamentally based upon the proposition that much as in former times the king created the community's money and, in the main, spent that money into circulation, so in our times the


government, through the Department of Finance, ought to create the money the community needs and spend into circulation as much of that money as is necessary to permit people to consume as much as they desire of the goods and services they can produce.
Social Crediters maintain that the only real backing of money is goods and services; that the dollar is merely a ticket or claim to goods and services; that, therefore, where goods and services are available for purchase and are not being bought with the dollars in circulation in consumers' hands, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) could, and in duty bound should, create new money much as the king once did. This money he should spend into circulation in such amounts, and in such ways, as will enable potential consumers to consume what they want of the said goods and services available for consumption.
During the early months of 1951 I gave considerable attention to the matter of the soundness of government money, created by the Minister of Finance, to be spent into circulation without creating a debt. On April 19, 1951, as recorded on pages 2196 to 2202 of Hansard, I asked many questions. The answers to those questions, if they had been honestly sought, honestly given and frankly faced, would have proven to the Prime Minister and the Department of Finance positively that the Social Credit attitude on the economic problems of our day is right. Did we get answers to those questions? No, not one. Did the Minister of Finance even condescend to pay attention to them? Never once. Did the Prime Minister give any evidence that he even knew those questions were asked? Never at any time. Then the responsibility rests squarely with the Prime Minister and the members of his finance department if they fail to solve the problems confronting them. It is just as simple as that.
On April 30, 1951, as recorded on pages 2519 to 2526 of Hansard I quoted Right Hon. Reginald McKenna. I believe I shall put those words on the record again. They are vital. They apply to the situation today. They apply to Canadians right now. Right Hon. Reginald McKenna was giving a report to the shareholders of the Midland Bank, of which he was chairman in the year 1936. On January 30, 1936, he said:
Additional currency, however, can now be furnished by the authorities, if they choose to exercise their powers without reference to the Central Bank's holding of gold. Thus the 19th century, which brought into general use a means of payment hitherto scarcely known outside London, brought also the machinery whereby it could be subjected to intelligent control. We learnt that a shortage of money may be just as vicious in its effects as an excess, though deflation has still a touch of virtue about it in the minds of many people. Nevertheless

it is becoming more and more widely recognized that greater productivity calls for an increased supply of money, for otherwise prices will fall, business will stagnate, and the growing productive capacity will be unused. For money to be truly "sound" there must be enough of it to finance an ordinarily growing volume of trade, yet not so much as to give rise to an inflationary movement of prices.
Members who are listening to me will recall that at one time the Prime Minister, in a quotation which I shall put on Hansard later if all goes well, declared that we have now inventories of goods on hand. We are afraid of them. He did not say that, but nevertheless a good many people are afraid of them.
I shall not refer at the moment to a number of other things which I said on April 30, 1951.
On May 1, 1951, as recorded on pages
2558	to 2563 of Hansard I read an account of the Finance Act of 1914, going right back into Canadian history. I read from the Canada Year Book for 1932 a footnote which reads as follows:
The Finance Act, 1914 (5 Geo. V, c. 3) makes provision in case of war, panic, etc., for the issue of dominion notes against approved securities; this emergency arrangement was made a permanent feature by c. 48 of the Statutes of 1923.
I read then a statement from the report of the royal commission on banking and currency for Canada published in 1933. I read a statement made by Mr. Fielding, a great Liberal finance minister of former times, when in 1923 he was reintroducing the finance act of 1914. This is found at page
2559	of Hansard, and I quote:
In introducing the new legislation Mr. Fielding, the Minister of Finance, made the following brief explanation of its purpose:
"The act (Finance Act) was adopted as a war measure, and no doubt was exceedingly useful in the financial operations during the war. It may be said that the war being over we no longer have any need for the act, but experience has shown that the act is still required; indeed, I am inclined to think that something of the kind will have to become almost a permanent part of our financial system."
May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that our experience during the last twenty years has shown conclusively that we do need such an act. It is the lack of that act, and the use thereof, that is one of the main causes of our trouble in Canada right now.
On that occasion I stressed that there must be plenty of production in order to justify the creation of debt-free money and the putting of it into circulation. I quoted from the Right Hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) when he said on April 9, 1951, as recorded at page 1762-that statement I will repeat:
I am sure that we can get along quite comfortably as consumers and still engage in a substantial 94699-16j
The Address-Mr. Blackmore defence effort. A few things may in the course of time become unavailable or relatively scarce, but standards of living will remain high. Unless all-out war comes, Canadians can continue to live well.
I quoted that statement and later requoted it, and commented on it; but the Prime Minister failed to pay any attention whatsoever to that striking remark from his great Minister of Trade and Commerce. The Minister of Trade and Commerce was telling in words just as plain as words could possibly make it that Canada was in a surplus supply position; that we did not need to have any rise in prices because of scarcity of goods. Consequently we did not need to adopt any measures that would be the old orthodox type for reducing inflation.
On May 3, as recorded at page 2671 of Hansard, I suggested the issue of $400 million to $500 million debt-free money rather than the imposition of one of the burdensome taxes then being proposed by the minister, taxes that the supply position of Canada at the time did not warrant. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) never said a word to indicate that there was a shortage of goods in Canada. He did not prove the shortage of one single commodity in this country. I draw the attention of all hon. members on both sides of the house to the fact that up to the present time not one of all the Liberal apologists has ever risen and shown that any commodity in Canada is scarce, and he cannot do it now. The result is that he can give no justification for any rise in prices. That is the first thing. I marvel that they are allowed to get away with this thing.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Is steel not short?


John Horne Blackmore: On June 30 I endeavoured to corner the Minister of Finance and his department, to make him come out and talk the way he should. The Minister of Finance just was not available. He did not come in, and his parliamentary assistant closed his mouth. He did not dare talk. The great authorities he had with him from the Bank of Canada, the top ranking authorities, did not dare utter one single syllable. Here are the questions I asked. These questions are already before the House of Commons and I am now putting them before the house and the country once more, as questions that simply must be answered if we are to be honest with the people -who sent us here. They are:
1.	A dollar created today by the treasury of Canada without debt or interest, and spent into circulation, much as was each of the 26 million dollars created by the treasury of Canada during world war I, and spent into circulation-such a dollar would be a sound dollar today, provided there were in Canada enough goods for such a dollar to "chase," would it not?
2.	Notwithstanding the Bank of Canada Act and the Bank Act of Canada, it would be feasible for this parliament to pass an act similar to the Finance Act of Canada, 1914, or that of 1923, granting the treasury of Canada the power to issue state dollars, without debt or interest, and spend those dollars into circulation, would it not?
3.	Possessing the power conferred by such an act, the treasury of Canada could soundly issue debt-free and interest-free, and scientifically spend into circulation, enough dollars into the hands of Canadian consumers, or potential consumers, so as to so supplement the dollars the consumers would be obtaining from sources available to them under our present system, as to enable Canadian consumers to buy Canadian goods and services to the limit of their desires, or to the limit of Canadian productive capacity, whichever limit might be arrived at first, could it not?
4.	Would it not appear that a logical means of scientifically spending such newly created debt-free dollars into the hands of consumers and potential consumers would be to compensate either manufacturers or retailers for giving a discount in the price consumers would have to pay, thereby in effect counteracting inflationary influences by buying lower prices?
5.	Would it not appear, furthermore, that another logical means of scientifically spending such newly-created dollars into circulation would be to provide consumers with direct issues of consumer purchasing power resembling cost of living bonuses, thereby counteracting deflationary tendencies by, in effect, purchasing markets.
Those questions remain, and unless the Prime Minister and his Department of Finance will speak up and answer them honestly, frankly and unwaveringly, then I declare he did not mean what he said in the quotation I put on record at the beginning of my remarks.
The Prime Minister said, as reported at page 41 of Hansard:
The ideal state would be a proper balance between purchasing power and supplies; but none of us- except perhaps the hon. member for Lethbridge
The Address-Mr. Blackmore (Mr. Blackmore)-has the formula by which to maintain that proper balance at all times.


John Horne Blackmore: Hear, hear.
And Mr. Blackmore is prepared to say that, "hear, hear", to the end of time. Mr. Black-more is also prepared to back that statement, any time, anywhere.
Now, the formula to which the Prime Minister referred should, I think, be read into the record, so that all may read it. I shall read from a book, a copy of which I think is in the library, called "Douglas Social Credit for Canada" by W. A. Tutte, published in 1934 in Vancouver. Mr. Tutte is the author of "Economic Madness" and "The Path to Sanity." We are suffering from economic madness, and we are seeking the path to sanity now. I quote from page 13 of the book. It says:
As indicated in the preceding chapter, the financial system, with all its defects as pointed out, is automatic in function. Accordingly, anything presuming to replace it should be equally automatic, and furthermore, if the defects are to be remedied the "rule of thumb" principles which govern the present system, e.g., bankers' decisions, must be replaced by mathematical accuracy.
The remedial proposals devised by Major Douglas under the name of Social Credit are logical and simple, yet wholly effective. They would eliminate poverty and depression forever within a few months.
They consist of three basic reforms:
1.	National money-Transfer of control of currency and credit from the hands of the banking system to the people through the agency of their government;
2.	The just price-A scientific, compensated retail price system, the incidence of which would apply over the whole nation and not differ in respect of different industries or different commodities, in order to obviate inflation, while providing for an exact relationship between the volume of purchasing power and the total possible of production;
3.	National dividends-Being a system of debt-free consumer credits distributed equally to all of the people, regardless of social station, and based on the costless creation of financial credit equal to the annual increase in the nation's total capital wealth.
Then, omitting one paragraph, I read:
The system would be administered by a department of government-wholly independent of and not subject to political control-known as the national accountancy bureau. The chief of this department would be appointed for life, removable only for cause, and within the limitations of his jurisdiction, not subject to administrative discipline.
And further down:
The transfer of money authority naturally would take from the banking system the privilege of creating financial credit. This would not necessarily involve the establishment of national banking, however.
The banks would resume their original functions as safeguarders of surplus funds, for which they would make a service charge, just as the storer of any other valuable article does now.
Their lending operations, if any, would be confined to the money entrusted to their care. Unlike the system now in vogue, the making of a bank

The Address-Mr. Blackmore loan (were it found necessary or desirable to continue this practice) would constitute a debit against the total of deposits. In this way a bank would be unable to lend more than had been entrusted to it, whereas at present, again as is demonstrated in part 2, banks find it possible to create financial credit in the ratio of ten or more to one of the amounts deposited with them.
The just price, detailed in part 3, would be mathematically computed by means of reports sent in to the national accountancy bureau, and would function by way of a discount allowed on all purchases of consumable goods-the net price of which would be based on the axiom, that the true cost of production is consumption, and hence all that part of the total cost above the just price representing, actually, an addition to the sum of national wealth, would be met by granting debt-free credit from the national credit account.
The advantage of this scientific price system would be two-fold. It would render inflation impossible while at the same time providing the general public with purchasing power equivalent to the total financial costs-that is prices-of all goods offered for sale.
And further down:
It must be noted that the national dividend, unlike the dole, would not cease because an individual had another form of income.
And further down again:
The national dividend would be derived from the same source as the discounts paid under the just price system; i.e., the national credit account, and whatever remained, after provision had been made for the just price discount, would be made available for distribution as dividends just as if every resident of the country were a stockholder in the Dominion of Canada Corporation. The method of distribution is detailed in part 2 of this volume.
While the ideal of equality of income seems impossible of attainment in any form of economy, it is important to note that the functioning of Douglas Social Credit, and particularly the national dividend system, would tend to eliminate the amassing of vast fortunes-which are chiefly attributable to an ability to command bank credit-by eventually making all personal incomes approximately equivalent to the economic importance of the individual to the community as a whole.
There is the formula for which the Prime Minister asked. And I will say, before leaving this book, to those who are not acquainted with this social credit doctrine, that it may sound confusing to them. It did to me at first. But so did algebra; so did trigonometry; so did other worth-while things. What wise man is foolish enough to suppose he can acquire complete mastery of a branch of science without study? Yet the majority of people, upon being confronted with the science of social credit, laugh at it as if it were something crazy. But would those same people laugh at trigonometry or astronomy as something crazy, because their silly little minds did not understand it?
I propose to the Prime Minister that he get in his department all the experts to study this book "Douglas Social Credit for Canada" so that they may go through it thoroughly. Then if they think they find in it anything

unsound, let them bring their criticisms to the floor of this house. I will answer them to the hilt.
The Prime Minister said, as recorded at page 41 of Hansard:
We cannot get away from the fact that while we are building up these combined forces of the free nations to create the kind of force that is apt to deter aggression, we are taking a certain proportion from the annual production and are not diminishing the purchasing power, except through taxation.
In the first place I would draw the attention of the Prime Minister again to the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) on April 9, 1951. I would also refer to a statement made by that minister on June 14, as reported at page 4078 of Hansard:
We have a tight manpower situation. As civilian producers, with exceptionally heavy stocks, run into consumer resistance, they may find it necessary to cut back staff. I am satisfied, however, that such personnel will be absorbed quickly into defence or defence-supporting industries. There will be minor dislocations, but I am satisfied that there is sufficient labour of the right kind in Canada to support our defence program as well as a flourishing civilian economy.
If the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) would only read those words and check with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) I think he would find that that minister is prepared completely to support his statement. I claim that production in Canada has a lead over consumption and I defy any person in the government to disprove that statement.
I therefore ask the Prime Minister: Why withdraw the purchasing power? Why not stimulate production to absorb the purchasing power or release what we now have in stock? That question needs to be answered.
The Prime Minister made another remark to which I should like to refer, and I quote from page 41 of Hansard of October 15, 1951, as follows:
Recently in many of our papers we have seen advertisements of cuts in prices, some of them attributable to the reference in the speech from the throne to the fact that the fixing of resale prices was going to be made illegal. I am informed that there are quite large inventories throughout the country-


Mr. Maclnnis:: Why then are prices going up?


Mr. St. Laurent:: Because there are people- and I am not suggesting that they include my hon. friend or me-who have money they would rather not keep than get the thing they can obtain at a high price.
Those inventories in large measure were available a year ago. They were available before the Korean war scare came on. Well-informed men were afraid that we were going into a depression because of those surpluses. Awareness of that fact has got around

to the Prime Minister at last apparently, and I hope he will act upon his new knowledge.
I think we must make allowance tor the answer made by the Prime Minister to the hon. member tor Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) as he probably had no previous preparation, but I think that was a most fallacious and insipid answer. What the Prime Minister should have said was this: My dear friend, the reason prices are going up is that in about the year 1946 various producers of goods began to advance their prices, not because there was a scarcity but because they were just plain hogs.
The first group to do that was the steel industry of Canada. They did it not because there was a scarcity of steel. A scarcity of steel, when we had been supporting Canada's magnificent war effort in the way of steel and were then coming into peace! A scarcity of steel! The very suggestion makes any realistic person disgusted. They advanced those prices because they wanted to make more money and keep prices up. That example was followed by other producers all over Canada who said, "if they got away with it, let us try." So they "got set".
Before very long, I propose to show in a future speech how disastrous the effect has been upon the Canadian people because of this action which was taken, not because there was a scarcity of goods but because there were so many Canadian producers who were not public-spirited enough to be reasonable in their demands for profits.
Our production shows every sign of exceeding the people's ability to buy. Right now our capacity to produce increases consistently and encouragingly from coast to coast in respect of practically every industry. It is true that we are going to use a quantity of goods in the work of war, but our army is so much smaller than it was in world war II and the need of civilian goods to supply that army is so much less than the amount of civilian goods required by troops in world war II that we shall have remaining all the goods we shall be able to consume in Canada, even those amounts which would be necessary for our citizens to enjoy a "flourishing" civilian economy, using the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
The vital questions which arise from the statements I have been making are as follows: First, is it sound for the government now to create a certain quantity of debt-free money? If there is a surplus of production, if there are these inventories the Prime Minister referred to, then it must be sound to create debt-free money to represent those surpluses.
The Address-Mr. Blackmore
Second, is the present high price structure a result of a shortage of goods in relation to money circulating in Canada, or is it mainly a result of deliberate and selfish advances in price? I do not think there is any question in the world that the latter alternative is the explanation.
Third, is there any surplus of goods at present in Canada? Ask the apple growers; ask the grape growers; ask the producers by the hundreds and thousands from coast to coast, and hear their answer.
Fourth, is that surplus large enough to enable the government to reimburse Canadian retailers for granting a consumer discount of one per cent on all sales over the retail counter during the first fifteen days of an experiment?
I challenge any man on the government side to bring forward facts to convince this house that our surplus is not sufficient to justify the payment of a discount of one per cent on all retail sales in Canada for fifteen days. If the Liberal party is right on the job in doing what people need them to do, they will challenge their ministers in their caucuses. They will then see just how lamely their ministers will answer. Perhaps they will answer as weakly as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) did on June 20 when my searching questions were put up to him. He had to leave the house because he could not or dared not answer. Let us have some facts and figures!
If our surplus position is such that we can afford to give a discount of one per cent on all retail goods, then let the government at the earliest practical date adopt this device of paying for a one per cent discount on all retail sales. This device would provide a definite reward to all producers and all distributors for preventing any further increase in their prices.
Then as production of consumable goods continues to increase, and it can continue, let the government employ the growing potential inventories of goods to absorb an increasing percentage of retail discounts to consumers, thereby progressively bringing down consumer prices without penalizing producers. And this last is a very important matter!
This procedure could be carried forward until the consumer price structure would be down as low as might be found ideal.
I might add that there would then be no danger of depression, no danger of disastrous loss which would drive any producers out of production. All would go forward smoothly.
I commend to the Prime Minister the formula which the member for Lethbridge

Standing Committees
has put forward, and I earnestly ask him not	miscellaneous private bills
to ignore the information I have given today.	Messrs:
On motion of Mr. Sinnott the debate was adjourned.
STANDING COMMITTEES Mr. W. G. Weir (Poriage-Neepawa):	I
wonder if the house would consent to reverting to the presentation of reports and motions. I ask this so that I may present the report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report the lists of members to compose the standing committees of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Mr. Weir presented the report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the standing committees of the house, as follows:



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS

[Stage Direction]
Benidickson Boisvert Brooks Campney Cardiff Carter Coldwell Cote (St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville)
Cote (Matapedia-Matane) Courtemanche Dechene Dickey Diefenbaker Dinsdale
Messrs:
Fair Fulford
Gour (Russell)
Harris (Grey-Bruce) Knowles Leduc Lefrancois Leger MacKenzie Parent Pouliot
Richard (Ottawa East) Riley
Stewart (Yorkton) Viau-29.
(Quorum-10)
RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES Messrs:
Applewhaite Beaudry Bertrand Beyerstein Bonnier Bourget Breithaupt Browne (St. John's West)
Cannon
Carter
Chevrier
Churchill
Clark
Conacher
Darroch
Dewar
Eudes
Ferguson
Follwell
Fulton
Garland
Gauthier (Portneuf) Gillis
Gourd (Chapleau)
Green
Harkness
Harrison
Hatfield
Hodgson
James
Johnston
Lafontaine
Low
Macdonald (Edmonton East)
MacNaught
McCulloch
McGregor
Mclvor
Mott
Murphy
Murray (Cariboo)
Mutch
Nixon
Nose worthy
Pouliot
Richard (St. Maurice-Lafleche)
Riley
Robinson
Rooney
Ross (Hamilton East) Smith (Queens-Shelburne)
Stuart (Charlotte)
Thatcher
Ward
Weaver
Whiteside
Whitman-60.
Healy Herridge Higgins
(Quorum-20)
Argue
Balcer
Balcom
Bater
Bonnier
Brooks
Cameron
Campney
Cauchon
ChurchiU
Cleaver
Cournoyer
Cote (Verdun-LaSalle)
Croll
Decore
Demers
Dinsdale
Eyre
Ferguson
Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont)
Gauthier (Lapointe) George Hansell Hosking Hunter Jeffery
Kent
Knight
Langlois (Berthier-Maskinonge)
Lennard
Little
MacDougall
MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria) McLean (Huron-Perth) Meeker Murphy Noseworthy Parent
Richard (Gloucester)
Roberge
Robertson
Stewart (Yorkton)
Tustin
Valois
Warren
White (Middlesex East)
Whitman
Winkler
Wood
Wylie-50.
(Quorum-15)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Adamson
Argue
Arsenault
Ashbourne
Balcom
Beaudry
Bennett
Blackmore
Bradette
Breithaupt
Brooks
Cannon
Carroll
Cleaver
Cote (St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville)
Crestohl
Dumas
Fleming
Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont)
Fraser
Fulford
Fulton
Gingras
Gour (Russell)
Harris (Danforth) Harkness
Hees
Hellyer
Helme
Hunter
Laing
Leduc
Low
Macdonnell
(Greenwood)
Macnaughton
Maltais
McMillan
Picard
Richard (Gloucester) Richard (Ottawa East) Riley Sinclair Smith (Moose Mountain)
Smith (York North) Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Thatcher Viau Ward Welbourn White (Hastings-Peterborough) -50.
(Quorum-15)

[Stage Direction]
Anderson
Ashbourne
Balcer
Beaudry
Benidickson
Beyerstein
Blue
Boisvert
Boivin
Brisson
Browne (St. John's West)
Campney
Messrs:
Cauchon
Cavers
Churchill
Cleaver
Cloutier
Croll
Decore
Denis
Fleming
Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont)
Fraser
Fulford
[Stage Direction]
Standing Committees
Fulton	Nowlan	Henderson	MacLean (Queens)Gauthier (Portneuf)	Pearkes	Higgins	MacNaughtGibson	Picard	James	MaltaisHarkness	Pinard	Kirk (Antigonish-	McLean (Huron-Perth)Helme	Richard (Gloucester)	Guysborough)	McLureJohnston	Richard (Ottawa East)	Langlois (Gaspe)	MottJutras	Riley	Leger	PearkesKirk (Antigonish-	Robinson	Macdonald (Edmonton	StickGuysborough)	Sinclair	East)	Stuart (Charlotte)Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth) Stewart (Winnipeg	Maclnnis	Thomas-35.Larson	North)	(Quorum-10)	Macdonnell (Greenwood) Thatcher	Major	Warren	MINES, FORESTS AND WATERS	Maltais	Wright-50.	Messrs:	(Quorum-15)	Adamson	JonesBenidickson	LaCroixAGRICULTURE	AND COLONIZATION	Black (Cumberland)	LafontaineMessrs:	Boivin	LarsonAnderson	Herridge	Brisson	LittleArsenault	Hetland	Byrne	MacLean (Queens)Aylesworth	Jones	Dickey	MclvorBater	Jutras	Dumas	McWilliamBennett	Kent	Eyre	Pearkes
Black (Chateauguay-
Kickham
Huntingdon-Laprairie) Kirk (Antigonish-
Blue
Guysborough)
Browne (St. John's West) Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth)
Breton Bruneau Bryce
Catherwood
Charlton
Clark
Corry
Cote (Matapedia-Matane) Courtemanche Cruickshank Darroch Demers Diefenbaker Dumas Fair
Fontaine
Gauthier (Lapointe) George [DOT]
Gosselin Gour (Russell) Harkness Hatfield
Laing Leger MacKenzie MacLean (Queens)
Major Masse McCubbin
McLean (Huron-Perth) Murray (Oxford) Murray (Cariboo) Quelch
Richard (St. Maurice-Lafleche)
Roberge Ross (Souris)
Studer Ward Welbourn
White (Middlesex East) Whitman Wood Wright Wylie-60.
(Quorum-20)
[Stage Direction]
Applewhaite
Arsenault
Ashbourne
Balcom
Bennett
Black (Cumberland)
Blackmore
Blair
Breton

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Cannon
Catherwood
Cavers
Cote (Matapedia-Matane)
Fulford
Gibson
Gillis
Harrison
Ferrie
Gauthier (Sudbury)
Gauthier (Lapointe)
Gourd (Chapleau)
Harkness
Herridge
Higgins
Hosking
Hunter
Proudfoot
Rowe
Simmons
Stick
Thomas
Weaver
Welbourn
Wylie-35.
(Quorum-10)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Messrs:
STANDING ORDERS Messrs:
Boisvert	MacLean (Cape Breton
Boucher	North and Victoria)
Breton	Meeker
Casselman	Monette
Denis	Pinard
Gibson	Quelch
Green	Robinson
Henry	Ross (Souris)
Huffman	Smith (York North)
Knowles	Stuart (Charlotte)
Viau-20.
(Quorum-8)
Balcer
Beaudoin
Black (Cumberland)
Boucher
Bourget
Breton
Brown (Essex West)
Byrne
Carroll
Clark
Cloutier
Conacher
Cote (Verdun-LaSalle)
Croll
Fairclough, Mrs.
Gauthier (Sudbury) Gauthier (Lake St. John) Gillis
Higgins Johnston Kent Knowles Lennard
Macdonald (Edmonton East)
Maclnnis McWilliam Meeker Mott Murphy Nixon Pouliot
Ross (Hamilton East) Stewart (Yorkton)
Viau
Weaver-35.
(Quorum-10)
Boucher
Casselman
Crestohl
Hees
Henry
Johnston
Balcer
Bater
Benidickson
Bradette
Breithaupt
Coldwell
Cote (Matapedia-Matane)
Croll
Decore
[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Knowles
Murray (Oxford)
Pouliot Simmons Valois Viau-12.
(Quorum-7)
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS Messrs:
Dickey
Diefenbaker
Fleming
Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont)
Fraser
Gauthier (Lake St. John) Gauthier (Portneuf) Goode Graydon
[Stage Direction]
Standing Committees	
Green	McCusker
Higgins	Murray (Cariboo)
Jutras	Picard
Leger	Pinard
Lesage	Quelch
Low	Richard (Ottawa East)
Maclnnis	Robinson
MacKenzie	Stick-35.
Macnaughton	
	(Quorum-10)
	PRINTING
(Members to act	on the part of the Commons)
	Messrs:
Argue	Hees
Ashbourne	Hetland
Bertrand	Hodgson
Beyerstein	Hunter
Black (Chateauguay- Kickham	
Huntingdon-Laprairie) Lefrangois	
Blackmore	MacDougall
Boivin	MacLean (Cape Breton
Bonnier	North and Victoria)
Breton	Maltais
Browne (St. John's West, McDonald (Parry Sound-	
Bryce	Muskoka)
Cameron	Mclvor
Cardiff	McLean (Huron-Perth)
Cauchon	McWilliam
Cavers	Murray (Oxford)
Charlton	Robertson
Cruickshank	Shaw
Darroch	Sinnott
Fairclough, Mrs.	Smith (Queens-
Ferguson	Shelburne)
Ferrie	Stanfield
Follwell	Stuart (Charlotte)
Fontaine	Studer
Gingras	Tustin
Gosselin	Weaver
Gour (Russell)	Welboum
Harkness	Whitman
Healy	Wright-54.
	(Quorum-)
	LIBRARY
(Members to act	on the part of the Commons)
Mr. Speaker and Messrs:	
Beyerstein	Knight
Blackmore	LaCroix
Brown (Essex West) Laing	
Carroll	Leger
Carter	MacNaught
Casselman	Mcllraith
Conacher	McMillan
Coyle	Noseworthy
Dechene	Pearkes
Demers	Proudfoot
Dinsdale	Ratelle
Eudes	Rochefort
Gauthier (Lapointe) Ross (Hamilton East)	
Gibson	Rowe
Gingues	Sinnott
Goode	Smith (York North)
Hellyer	Smith (Moose Mountain)
Henderson	Tustin
Higgins	Valois
Hunter	White (Middlesex East)
Jones	Whiteside
Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth) Winkler-44.	
(Quorum-)

[Stage Direction]
(Members to act on the part of the Commons) Mr. Speaker and Messrs:
Breithaupt	Coumoyer
Casselman	Dewar
Ferguson
Gauthier (Sudbury) Gour (Russell)
Hansell
Harkness
Langlois (Berthier-Maskinonge)
Leger
Little
Macdonald (Edmonton East)
MacNaught
McCulloch
McGregor
Ratelle
Richard (Ottawa East)
Rochefort
Simmons
Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Stick
Ward
White (Hastings-Peterborough) -24.
(Quorum-)
Mr. Weir moved: that the report be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Alphonse Fournier (for the Prime Minister) moved:: That the standing committees of this house shall severally be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the house, and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
PARLIAMENTARY RESTAURANT Mr. W. G. Weir (Poriage-Neepawa) moved: That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting Their Honours that this house has appointed Mr. Speaker and Messrs. Breithaupt, Casselman, Cour-noyer, Dewar, Ferguson, Gauthier (Sudbury), Gour (Russell), Hansell, Harkness, Langlois (Berthier-Maskinonge), Leger, Little, Macdonald (Edmonton East I, MacNaught, McCulloch, McGregor, Ratelle, Richard (Ottawa East), Rochefort, Simmons, Stewart (Winnipeg North), Stick, Ward and White (Hast-ings-Peterborough), to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the restaurant so far as the interests of the House of Commons are concerned, and to act on behalf of the House of Commons as members of a joint committee of both houses on the restaurant.
Motion agreed to.

William Gilbert Weir: That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting Their Honours that this house has appointed Mr. Speaker and Messrs. Beyerstein, Brown (Essex West), Blackmore, Carroll, Carter, Casselman, Con-acher, Coyle, Dechene, Demers, Dinsdale, Eudes, Gauthier (Lapointe), Gibson, Gingues, Goode, Hell-yer, Henderson, Higgins, Hunter, Jones, Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth), Knight, LaCroix, Laing, Leger, MacNaught, Mcllraith, McMillan, Noseworthy, Pearkes, Proudfoot, Ratelle, Rochefort, Ross (Hamilton East), Rowe, Sinnott, Smith (York North), Smith (Moose Mountain), Tustin, Valois, White (Middlesex East), Whiteside and Winkler, a committee to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the library of parliament so far as the interests of the House of Commons are concerned, and to act on behalf of the House of Commons as members of a joint committee of both houses on the library.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Gilbert Weir: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this house will unite with them in the formation of a joint committee of both houses on the subject of the printing of parliament, and that the following members, viz. Argue, Ashbourne, Bertrand, Beyerstein, Black (Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie), Blackmore, Boivin, Bonnier, Breton, Browne (St. John's West), Bryce. Cameron, Cauchon, Cardiff, Cavers, Charlton, Cruickshank, Darroch, Fairclough, Mrs., Ferguson, Ferrie, Foil-well, Fontaine, Gingras, Gosselin, Gour (Russell), Harkness, Healy, Hees, Hetland, Hodgson, Hunter, Kickham, Lefrangois, MacDougall, MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria), Maltais, McDonald (Parry Sound-Muskoka), Mclvor, McLean (Huron-Perth), McWilliam, Murray (Oxford), Robertson, Shaw, Sinnott, Smith (Queens-Shelburne), Stanfield, Stuart (Charlotte), Studer, Tustin, Weaver, Welbourn, Whitman and Wright will act as members
Standing Committees
on the part of this house on the said joint committee on the printing of parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, on Monday we will take up the motion relating to the procedure to be followed in the house and then the resolution in the name of the Prime Minister to approve of Canada's participation in the efforts being made through the United Nations and NATO to establish and maintain international peace. I understand that the leaders of the different parties met last week and agreed this would be taken up on Monday. If we have time left we will continue the debate on the address.
At 7.05 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on October 12, 1951.

Monday, October 22, 1951